r-=< 1-D THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE CONFESSIONAL THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE CONFESSIONAL A GUIDE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE BY PROF. CASPAR E. SCHIELER, D.D. EDITED BY REV. H. J. HEUSER, D.D. PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT OVEKBROOK SEMINARY INTRODUCTION BY THE MOST REV. S. G. MESSMER, D.D., D.C.L. ARCHBISHOP OF MILWAUKEE SECOND EDITION NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO BENZIGER BROTHERS PRINTERS TO THE ) PUBLISHERS OF HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE | BENZIGER'S MAGAZINF REMIGIUS LAFORT, Censor Librorum Imprimatur, ^ JOHN M. FARLEY, Archbishop of New York NEW YORK, AUG. 31, 1905 COPYRIGHT, 1905, BY BENZIGER BROTHERS. INTRODUCTION " THERE is nothing more excellent or more useful for the Church of God and the welfare of souls than the office of Con fessor. By his sacred ministry the sinner is lightened of the burden of sin, freed from the yoke of Satan and concupiscence, and clothed again with the robe of innocence previously lost. Weak knees are confirmed (Is. xxxv. 3) ; that is, men weak and idle in mind receive new vigor, and lastly the just are aroused and enkindled to persevere in goodness and to reach with freshly spurred zeal for the crown of justice laid up for them (2 Tim. iv. 8). "How great and arduous is the office of Confessor appears clearly from the fact that by it he is made a judge in the place of Christ and that of his judgment he must some day render a strict account to the Supreme Judge. To him, therefore, apply the words with which the pious king of Israel charged the judges appointed by him, 'Take heed what you do: for you exercise not the judgment of man, but of the Lord God; and whatever you judge, it shall redound to you' (2 Paral. xix. 6). In this tribunal, however, the priest may not consider himself to be only a Judge to hear the culprit's confession, to correct him, and then, having imposed sentence, to send him away. He must also act the part of the Shepherd and, following the example of the Good Shepherd, must know his sheep, bring back to the fold those that strayed away and fell among thorns, and finally lead them unto wholesome pastures and the waters of eternal refreshment. He must be a Physician giving suitable remedies to the sick, and treating and healing with anxious and skillful vi INTRODUCTION hand the wounds of the soul. Lastly he must be a Father , and like the father in the Gospel cheerfully receive with the kiss of peace the prodigal son returning from exile, where he had been lost and consumed by hunger and filth; he must vest the son found again with the first robe, refresh him with the fatted calf and delicious dishes, and restore him to the former place and dignity of heir and son. " Therefore let the priest who goes to hear confession seriously ponder over these offices of judge, shepherd, physician, and father, and endeavor, as far as in him lies, to fulfill them in deed and work. Above all let him remember that he acts in the place of Christ and as an ambassador for God, as the Apostle often tells us" (Cone. Bait. PL II. nn. 278, 279, 280). The present volume is a practical commentary upon these weighty words of the Fathers of the Baltimore Council. The tremendous responsibility of the Catholic priest exercising the ministry of the Sacrament of Penance must appear in a truly dazzling light to the mind of every one who but glances over the following pages. Human intelligence can never fully grasp the true significance of this divine sacrament, which works at the same time forgiveness of sin and sanctification by grace; which is for poor fallen man at once the judgment of God's infinite hatred of sin and the manifestation of His infinite mercy for the repentant sinner; which brings humiliation and punishment while it fills the soul returning to God with un speakable joy and comfort. Who can tell the number of souls troubled by sin and sinful temptations who have found peace and consolation, strength and holy courage in this sacrament ? the number of souls kept not only for days, but for years in the bondage of evil passion and Satan who were, by the words of absolution, freed from that ignominious slavery and- led again to enjoy the freedom of the children of God? the num ber of souls snatched from the brink of perdition by the strong hand of God extended to them through His minister in the con- INTRODUCTION vu fessional? the number of souls buried in spiritual death by grievous sin who were brought out from their tombs to super natural life and the sunshine of heavenly grace by the power of sacramental confession? Only the book of life reveals them all. To be the minister of such a sacrament is, indeed, a glorious calling. Most excellent in itself and most useful for the Chris tian people is the office of Confessor. But the Fathers of the Council tell us it is also a most arduous office. In very truth, the faithful administration of the Sacrament of Penance demands a great deal more of the personal cooperation of the minister with the recipient than any other sacrament. Not to mention the fact that in the other sacraments, marriage alone excepted, the acts of the recipient desirous to receive the sacrament have nothing directly to do with the substance and validity of the sacrament, while in confession these acts are not a mere condition, but form the materia ex qua the sacrament arises, there is not the slightest doubt whatever of the most serious and grave duty of the confessor to assist the penitent as far as possible towards a worthy and profitable confession. He is not only bound, as in all other sacraments, to insure the validity of the sacrament and to assure himself of the required disposi tion of the recipient, but here more than elsewhere he must himself effect and bring forth, as well as he can, the worthy and right disposition of the penitent. Nor is this all. Confession is not merely to free the sinner from sin for a few passing mo ments ; it must so strengthen his will and direct his heart that he will avoid the coming danger and resist the future tempta tion. Herein lies the difficult and arduous task of the confessor. It is in the discharge of this duty that the priest needs all the love and charity, patience and meekness, of the spiritual father: all the prudence and close attention, the knowledge and experience of the spiritual physician ; all the understanding of the holy law and the firmness, impartiality, and discretion of the spiritual judge; the watchful care and patient search of vill INTRODUCTION the spiritual shepherd ; the holy knowledge and wisdom of the spiritual teacher; the fervid prayer, saintly life, and burning zeal for souls necessary to him who is to be the minister of Jesus Christ unto sinful man redeemed by His precious blood. Even this is not all. Confession is not only a means of cleansing the sinner from the stain of sin and vice, and of giving him strength and courage in the battle against tempta tion ; but it is also to help the just and holy man to rise continu ally higher on the ladder of Christian perfection. It is the sacrament for saint and sinner. The greatest saints of God in holy Church had the greatest reverence and desire for holy con fession. St. Charles Borromeo went to confession every day. Hence the tender care of the flowers and fruits of Christian virtue in the heart of his penitent is another important duty of the father confessor. How is he to fulfill it in a manner profit able to the penitent and to himself, unless he is well acquainted with the principles and facts of the spiritual life by a thorough study of Christian ascetics and the earnest practice of Christian perfection ? What a responsibility when a soul called by God to the higher walks of Christian life, and willing to follow the call, be it in the world or in the cloister, falls into the hands of an ignorant, neglectful, or heedless confessor! But what glory to God, what happiness of soul, what merit for heaven, when by holy zeal and skillful effort the minister of God in holy confes sion leads the Christian soul, panting after God as the hart panteth after the fountains of water (Ps. xlii. 2), into the sanctu ary of God's love, grace, and mercy ! What a glorious ministry ! We can only hope and pray that Catholic priests will care fully read the beautiful and instructive lessons that Dr. Schieler's book offers, and ponder over them day and night. There is no greater blessing for Church and State, society and individual, than an army of priests who are confessors according to the spirit of Christ; for they are in a fuller sense than others " good stewards of the manifold grace of God " (1 Petr. iv. 10). * S. G. MESSMER. EDITOR'S PREFACE AN English translation of Dr. Schieler's exhaustive work on "The Sacrament of Penance," for the use of theological stu dents and missionary priests, had been advised by some of our bishops and professors of theology. It was felt that, under present conditions, a work in the vernacular on a subject which involved to a very large extent the practical direction of souls was an actual necessity for many to whom the Latin texts deal ing with the important questions of the Confessional were for one reason or another insufficient. There was one serious objection to the publication of a work in English, which, since it deals with most delicate subjects, might for this reason cause an unqualified or prejudiced reader to misunderstand or pervert its statements, so as to effect the very opposite of what is intended by the Church in her teaching of Moral and Pastoral Theology. Between the two dangers of a lack of sufficiently practical means to inform and direct the confessor and pastoral guide of souls in so difficult and broad a field as is presented by the missions in English-speaking coun tries, and the fear that a manual from which the priest derives his helpful material of direction may fall into the hand of the ill-advised, for whom it was not intended, the latter seems the lesser evil, albeit it may leave its deeper impression upon cer tain minds that see no difficulty in using the sources of informa tion in which the Latin libraries abound. One proof of both the necessity and the superior advantage of having a vernacular expression of this branch of theological literature, for the use of students and priests in non-Latin coun tries, is readily found in the fact that authorized scholarship and pastoral industry in Germany have long ago seen fit to supply this need for students in its theological faculties, and for priests on the mission, and that the benefit of such a course has shown itself far to overlap the accidental danger of an unprofessional use of the source of Moral Theology in the hands of a lay-reader, 6 PREFACE or one hostile to the Catholic Church who might pervert its doc trine and arouse the zeal of the prudish. The work was, therefore, not undertaken without serious weighing of the reasons for and against its expediency from the prudential as well as moral point of view. As a competent trans lator of it, the name of the Rev. Richard F. Clarke, S.J., of the English Province, whose editions of Spirago's catechetical volumes had given him the advantage of special experience in kindred work, suggested itself to the publishers. Father Clarke actu ally undertook the translation, and had fairly completed it when death overtook him. The manuscript was placed in my hands with a request to prepare it for publication. After much delay, due to a multiplicity of other professional duties, I found it pos sible, with the cooperation of the Rev. Dr. Charles Bruehl, who kindly consented to undertake the principal work of revision, to complete the volume which is now placed at the disposal of our clergy. There is probably room for some criticism in parts wherein I have undertaken to alter the expressions of the author and of the original translator, with a view of accommodating the matter to the temperament of the English reader. In this I may have sinned at times both by excess and by deficiency; but these blemishes can, I trust, be eliminated in future editions of a work which, for the rest, contains so much of instructive material as to prove itself permanently useful to the theologian and pastor. In some cases I would not wish to be understood as sharing the author's views, nor should I have deemed an insistence upon the often-cited opinions of casuists quite so essential in a work of this kind as it seemed to the learned author. But in this I did not feel authorized to depart from his text, even if I had not fully appreciated the advantage of his ample references and quota tions in matters of detail. Whatever we think of the author's personal views, his citations of the masters in the science of mor als give to his book certain advantages entitled to recognition. With these restrictions borne in mind, it would be difficult to exaggerate the usefulness of a work such as this, which directs the priest in the sacramental ministry of Penance as indicated by the laws and practice of the Church. The aim of every pastor must in the first place be to rouse the PREFACE 7 consciences of the individual members of his flock to motives of pure and right living. The Gospel of Christ furnishes the model of such living, and the Church is the practical operator under whose direction and authority the principles of the Gospel are actively carried into society, from the lowest to the highest strata. The sacramental discipline of the Confessional is the directest and most powerful instrument by which the maxims and precepts of the Gospel are made operative and fruitful in the individual conscience. A prominent non-Catholic writer of our day has characterized the Catholic Church as the Empire of the Confessional. So she is, and her empire is the strongest, the most penetrating, permanent, and effective rule for the good conduct of the individual arid the peace arid prosperity of the community that can be conceived. On the proper operation, therefore, of the Sacrament of Pen ance depends in the first place all that we can look for of satis faction and peace upon earth. But the administration of the Sacrament of Penance is solely in the hands of the priest or con fessor. If he knows what to do, if he is wisely diligent in doing what the discipline of the Confessional instructs him to do, he will rule his people with order and ease, he will gain their gratitude and their love, he will reap all the fruits of a happy ministry, and his name will be in benediction among men of good will within and without the fold. The Confessional is a tribunal. It demands a certain knowl edge of the law, exercise of discretion and prudence in the appli cation of the law, and the wisdom of kindly counsel to greater perfection. As the lawyer, the judge, the physician, learn their rules of diagnosis and prescription in the first instance from books and then from practice, so the future confessor, for three or four years a student of theology, deems it his first and most important duty to study Moral Theology, and this with the single and almost exclusive purpose of making use of it in the Confessional. Moral Theology gives him the principles of law and right, the rules to apply them to concrete cases, and certain precedents by wTay of illustration, in order to render him familiar with actual and practical conditions. But the young priest learns much more during the first few months and years of his actual ministry by sitting in the Confessional and 8 PREFACE dealing with the consciences of those who individually seek his direction. There is some danger that the practical aspect, with all the distracting circumstances of sin's work in the soul, may in time obscure the clear view of principles and make the confessor what the criminal judge is apt to become during long years of incum bency, oversevere or overindulgent, as his temper dictates. He may thus lose that fine sense of discrimination, that balanced use of fatherly indulgence and needful correction, which the position of the representative of eternal justice and mercy demands. To. obviate this result, which renders the Confessional a mere work of routine and absolution, instead of being, as it should be, a means of correction and reform, the priest, like the judge, needs to read his books of law and to refurbish his knowledge of theory and practice and his sense of discernment. But the theological texts with which he was familiar under the Seminary discipline, where nothing distracted him from the attentive use of them, are not now so readily at hand. Their Latin forms are a speech which, if not more strange and difficult than during his Seminary course, seems more distant and uninviting. The priest, even the young priest, would rather review his Moral Theology in the familiar language in which he is now to express his judgments to his penitents. This fact alone suggests the pertinent use of the book before us. There the confessor, the director of the conscience, finds all that he was taught in his Moral Theology. He finds much more ; for the author has made the subject a specialty of treatment which leads him to light up every phase of the confessor's task. He has himself studied all the great masters in the direction of souls from the Fathers of the Church down to the Scholastics of the thirteenth century; and more especially those that follow, who have entered into the theory and art of psychical anatomy -Guilelmus Paris, Cardinal Segusio, St. Thomas, St. Bona- venture, Gerson, St. Charles Borromeo, Toletus, De Ponte, St. Francis of Sales, Lugo, Lacroix, Concina, Cajetan, and Bergamo, St. Alphonsus, Reuter, and finally those many doctors of the last century who have written upon the duties of the con fessor in the light of modern necessities and special canon law. It is hardly necessary to explain to the priest who has passed PREFACE 9 over the ground of the sacramental discipline as found in his theological text-books, how the subject is here presented in the detail of analysis and application to concrete conditions. Pen ance is a Virtue and it is a Sacrament. To understand the full value of the latter we must examine its constituent elements, the matter, form, conditions, the dispositions and acts of the penitent, sorrow for sin, purpose of amendment, actual accusa tion of faults in the tribunal — requisites which are dealt with by Professor Schieler in the traditional manner, but with clear ness and attention to detail. Of special importance are the suggestions in the third chapter, touching the integrity of the Confession: the number, circum stances certain and doubtful, of the sins, and the reasons which excuse the penitent from making a complete confession; like wise the treatment of invalid confessions, of general confessions, their purpose, necessity, or danger as the case may be ; satisfac tion, its acceptance or commutation. The main object of the treatise lies, however, as might be sup posed, in the exposition of the confessor's powers and jurisdic tion, and of the reservation and abuse of faculties. These matters are in the first place discussed from the theoretical stand point. Then follows the application, which takes up the second principal part of the work.. Here we have the confessor in the act of administering the Sacrament. He is told how he is to diagnose the sinner's condition by the proposal of questions and by ascertaining his motives — how far and to what end this probing is lawful and wise. Next the qualities of the confessor, his duties and responsibilities, are set forth in so far as they must lead him to benefit his penitent both in and out of the tribunal of penance. The obligation of absolute secrecy or the sigillum is the subject of an extended chapter. From the general viewpoint which the confessor must take of his penitent's condition and the safeguards by which he is to pro tect the penitent both as accused and accuser, our author leads us into the various aspects of the judge's duties toward penitents in particular conditions. Thus the sinner who is in the constant occasion of relapse into his former sin, the sinner who finds him self too weak to resist temptation, the penitent who aims at extraordinary sanctity, the scrupulous, the convert, form sepa- 10 PREFACE rate topics of detailed discussion. The last part of the volume deals with the subjects of confessions of children, of young men and young women, of those who are engaged to be married, of persons living in mixed marriage, of men, religious women, of priests, and of the sick and dying. Some of our readers may recall that we have protested against too implicit a reliance on an artificial code of weights and measures in the matter of sin ; and to them it may seem that in seconding the translation of such a work as this we go contrary to the prin ciples advocated, because our author presents the same applica tion of canon law and judicial decision which has been sanctioned by the great moralists and canonists of the schools. But let the reader remember that in the text-books of the Seminary, we have as a rule the principles and precepts presented in their skeleton form so as to leave the impression of fixed maxims, which cannot be altered, although they are in many cases only the coined con victions of individual authors, to whose authority the student is taught to swear allegiance. In the present volume princi ples and precepts are so discussed that they admit of an all-sided view, and as a result do not hinder that freedom of judgment which is so essential a requisite in a good judge and, therefore, in a confessor. For the rest we felt it, of course, to be our duty toward the author to preserve his train of thought and reasoning, and if anything is needed to make his exposition especially appli cable to our missionary conditions of time and place, it will be easily supplied by any one who shall have read and studied the present work. H. J. HEUSER. CONTENTS PART I PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT PAGE 1. The Virtue of Penance 17 2. The Sacrament of Penance 20 3. Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance .-„... 22 4. Forgiveness of Venial Sin ........ 29 5. The Constituent Parts of the Sacrament of Penance in General . 37 6. The Remote Matter of the Sacrament of Penance in Particular . 39 7. The Form of the Sacrament ... 0 .... 50 8. Conditional Absolution ......... 59 PART II THE RECIPIENT OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, OR THE ACTS OF THE PENITENT 9. Who can Receive the Sacrament of Penance ..... 70 CHAPTER I CONTRITION 10. Extent and Efficacy of Contrition 7 1 11. The Essential Features of Perfect Contrition . • . . . .76 12. The Effects of Perfect Contrition and the Obligation of Pro curing it . 81 13. Imperfect Contrition ......... 88 14. The Necessary Qualities of Contrition 98 15. The Relation of Contrition to the Sacrament Ill CHAPTER II THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT 16. Necessity and Nature of the Purpose of Amendment . . . 121 17. Properties of the Purpose of Amendment 126 18. The Purpose of Amendment with regard to Venial Sin . 133 11 1 2 CONTENTS CHAPTER III CONFESSION Article I. Essence, Necessity, and Properties of Confession 19. Essence and Necessity of Confession ...... 137 20. Properties of Confession 138 Article II. The Integrity of the Confession 21. Necessity of the Integrity of Confession . ..... 153 22. Extent of the Integrity of Confession 157 23. The Number of Sins in Confession . .' 163 24. The Confession of the Circumstances of Sins ..... 166 25. The Confession of Doubtful Sins ....... 180 20. Sins omitted through Forgetfulness or Other Causes not Blame worthy 193 27. Reasons Excusing from Complete Accusation .... 198 A rticle II L The Means to lie employed in Order to make a Perfect Confession 28. The Examination of Conscience ....... 215 29. Invalid Confessions .......... 222 30. General Confession 228 31: The Manner of Hearing General Confession 238 32. Plan for making a General Confession 245 CHAPTER IV SATISFACTION 33. The Imposition of Penance by the Confessor 256 34. The Acceptance and Performance of the Penance by the Penitent 271 35. The Commutation of the Penance ...... 274 PART III THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT Section I. The Powers of the Confessor 30. Orders. Jurisdiction, Approbation 279 CHAPTER I JURISDICTION 37. The Minister of the Sacrament with Ordinary Jurisdiction . . 284 38. The Minister of the Sacrament with Delegated Jurisdiction or Approbation ....... 288 CONTENTS 13 PAGK 39. Jurisdictio Delcgata Extraordinaria, or, the Supplying of Deficient Jurisdiction by the Church 300 40. The Administration of the Sacrament of Penance to Members of Religious Orders ......... 307 41. Jurisdiction and Approbation for the Confessions of Nuns . . 311 CHAPTER II LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION on RESERVED CASES 42. Reserved Cases in General 316 43. The Papal Reserved Cases , 320 44. Absolution of Reserved Sins 340 CHAPTER III ABUSE OF POWER BY THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT 45. Inquiring after the Name of the Accomplice in Sin . . . 351 46. The Absolution of the Complex in Peccato Turpi .... 354 47. Sollicitatio Proprii Pcenitentis ad Turpia ...... 364 Section II. The Office of the Confessor CHAPTER I THE ESSENTIAL DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICE; OR, THE CONFESSOR CONSIDERED IN HIS OFFICE OF JUDGE 48. The Knowledge of the Sins 379 49. The Nature of the Questions to be put to the Penitent . . . 382 50. The Examination of the Dispositions of the Penitent . . . 398 51. The Confessor's Duty in Disposing his Penitents .... 402 52. The Duty of the Confessor to administer, to defer, or to refuse Absolution 407 CHAPTER II THE ACCESSORY DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR Article I. The Preparation 53. The Virtues which the Confessor must Possess . ' . . . 416 54. The Scientific Equipment of the Confessor . - 424 55. The Prudence of the Confessor . • 434 14 CONTENTS PAGE A rticle II. Duties of the Confessor during Confession 56. The Duty of instructing and exhorting the Penitent (Munus Doctoris) . 438 57. The Duty of suggesting Remedies against Relapse (the Confessor as Physician) 448 CHAPTER III THE DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR AFTER THE CONFESSION 58. The Duty of correcting Errors occurring in the Confession . . 460 59. The Duty of preserving the Seal of Confession .... 466 60. The Subject of the Seal of Confession 471 61. The Object or Matter of the Seal of Confession .... 473 62. Violations of the Seal 476 Section III. The Duties of the Confessor toward Different Classes of Penitents CHAPTER I THE TREATMENT OF PENITENTS IN DIFFERENT SPIRITUAL CONDITIONS Article L The Occasionarii 63. Sinful Occasions and the Duty of avoiding them .... 487 64. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occaslone Proximo, Voluntaria ......... 493 65. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occasione Necessaria 496 66. Some Commonly Occurring Occasions of Sin ..... 501 Article II. Habitual and Relapsing Sinners 67. Definition and Treatment of Habitual Sinners .... 518 68. Relapse, and the Treatment of Relapsing Sinners . . . .521 69. Relapsing Sinners requiring Special Care 530 70. Penitents aiming at Perfection 536 71. Hypocritical Penitents 543 72. Scrupulous Penitents 545 73. Converts 555 CHAPTER II THE TREATMENT OF PENITENTS IN DIFFERENT EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES 74. The Confession of Children 561 75- The Confession of Young Unmarried People 575 CONTENTS 15 PAGE 76. The Confessor as Adviser in the Choice of a State of Life . . 583 77. Betrothal and Marriage 592 78. The Confessor's Attitude toward Mixed Marriages . . . 600 79. How to deal with Penitents joined in "Civil " Marriage only - 607 80. The Confessor's Conduct toward Women 608 81. The Confessions of Men 614 82. The Confession of Nuns 618 83. The Confession of Priests 624 CHAPTER III PENITENTS IN EXTREME DANGER 84. The Importance of the Priest's Ministry at the Bedside of the Sick and the Dying 630 85. The Confessions of the Sick 632 86. Absolution of the Dying 645 TOPICAL INDEX 655 THEOKY AND PRACTICE OF THE CONFESSIONAL PART I PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT 1. The Virtue of Penance. AT all times penance has been the necessary means (necessi tate medii ad salutem) of obtaining pardon for those who had committed mortal sin. "If we do not do penance, we shall fall into the hands of the Lord," is the warning of the Old Testament (Ecclus. ii. 22). And when God sent His prophets, it was to arouse men to repentance by the announcement of His wrath, and threatening punishments. The forerunner of Our Lord solemnly exhorts the assembled crowds, "Do penance; the king dom of heaven is at hand." Our Lord Himself insists on the same point with awful determination, "Unless you do penance you shall all likewise perish" (Luke xiii. 3). He proclaims as the task of His own public ministry and the great mission of His Church, "to call sinners to repentance" (Luke v. 32). Accord ingly, the burden of the Apostles' preaching was, "Do penance" (Acts ii. 38), for "God hath also to the gentiles given repentance unto life" (Acts xi. 18). Thus penance is indispensable to the sinner by divine ordi nance, as the Council of Trent expressly teaches (Sess. xiv. c. 1). It is not less clearly dictated by natural law. "For reason prompts man to do penance for the sins which he has com mitted; but divine command determines the manner according to which it is to be performed." * Taken in its widest sense, penance may be defined as a regret for some past action. Such a regret is not necessarily virtuous, i S. Th. S. Theol. IFF. Q. 84, art, 7 ad 7. 17 18 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT for a morally indifferent or even a good action may be to us a source of displeasure and grief. But even in its restricted mean ing, denoting grief, on account of some bad action, penance does not yet include the idea of virtue. Grief is caused by the per ception of anything we look upon as an evil. Now sin maybe regarded as an evil in more than one way. Then only does our penance rise to the height of a virtue, if we feel sorry for our sins, not by reason of some temporal disadvantage we have incurred, but for God's sake, whose holy law we have transgressed and whose majesty we have outraged. In other words, the virtue of penance requires that we detest sin as an evil of a higher, supernatural order. Penance is not a virtue of its own and specifically distinct from other virtues. St. Thomas considers it as belonging to the virtue of justice, because by it we perform an act of justice toward God, since we restore to Him the honor of which sin has deprived Him, and make reparation for our wrongdoings.2 Apparently, it springs from the virtue of religion, as an effect thereof; for to detest one's sin as an injustice done to God im plies an acknowledgment of His sovereign goodness and majesty. This submission to God is an act of the virtue of religion.3 Furthermore, Lehmkuhl 4 is right in attaching the act of penance to virtues of different species. For sin, being in many ways an evil and opposed to holiness and duty, may be deplored from different reasons; and so our penance belongs to that virtue which supplies the motive of sorrow. Thus, a sinner may loathe his impurity from a love of purity, his intemperance from a love of temperance, his pride from a love of humility; he may also abhor sins because they are repugnant to more general virtues, such as the love of God and gratitude toward God.5 2 S. Th. S. Theol. III. Q. 85, art. 3 ad 3. 8 Cf. Miiller, Theol. Mor. Lib. TIL Tit. TT. § 100. 4 Theol. Mor. Tom. II. § 1, De Pcenit. n. 251; cf. Palmieri, Tract.de Pceuit. (Rome, 1879), p. 18 et seq. ,G While theologians are united in admitting a virtus generalis pwnitentice THE VIRTUE OF PENANCE 19 The virtue of penance, thus being a complete destruction of all affection to sin, has an intimate bearing on the Sacrament of Penance. It is the disposition required on the part of the sinner, not only for the worthy, but also for the valid reception of the Sacrament. It represents, so to speak, the matter of the Sacrament, so that without it the Sacrament is null and void. Consequently, it enters as a constituent part into the very essence of the Sacrament. The most important act of the virtue of penance is an act of the will and is called contrition. It is contrition that gives birth to penance, vivifies and animates it. Without contrition, there is no remission of sin ; for it alone leads to a sincere avowa/ of our guilt and a meritorious satisfaction. The second act of penance is the confession of sin : it is penance exercised by speech. Justice exacts that the guilty should acknowledge their wickedness, and also make amends for the sins committed by words. The third act of penance is sat isfaction in expiation of our misdeeds. The bad deed is com pensated by some good action, which we are not bound to do, but which we perform in order to supply for our past deficiencies. This is penance in deed. These three acts of penance are most intimately connected with the Sacrament, and this union imparts to them a special efficacy and strength; for the imperfect virtue, which of itself is unable to effect justification, by its elevation to sacra mental dignity acquires the power of conferring sanctifying grace.6 having its own material and formal object, they fail to agree on the definition of the formal object. Cf. Suarez, Lugo, and more especially Palmieri, 1. c. 6 Cf . S. Th. III. Q. 85 et seq. de pcenitentia secundum quod est virtus, Suarez, De Sacramento Poenitentiae Disp. per 2 Sectiones, de pcenitentia in cont- muni ; Lugo, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, P. I. pp. 1-44 (Roniae, 1879) ; Miiller, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Sect. 106; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Tom. II. Tract. V. De Sacr. Pcenit. Sect. 1 ; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. V. De Pcenit. Pars I. 20 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT 2. The Sacrament of Penance. The arguments for the existence of the Sacrament of Penance do not form part of our task; they come within the scope of dogmatic theology. We shall only point out some theological propositions on which our subsequent dissertations are based. 1. Jesus Christ gave to His apostles and their successors in the holy ministry the power of forgiving and retaining sins com mitted after Baptism. 2. This power is judicial and is exercised in the form of a judicial process. On this evident deduction from the words of the institution is based the entire Catholic teaching concern ing the Sacrament of Penance. 3. The exercise of this judicial power constitutes a Sacra ment, the object of which is to reconcile the sinner to his God. 4. The outward sign of the Sacrament is the exercise of the judicial functions; this comprises, on the one hand, the acts of the penitent, — contrition, confession, and satisfaction; and on the other, the priestly absolution, being the sentence delivered by the representative of God. 5. The grace conferred by the Sacrament is the remission of all sins, embracing the effacement of the guilt, the obliteration of the eternal punishment, and the condonation of, at least, a portion of the temporal punishment. This remission of sin is accomplished by the infusion of sanctifying grace, which, more over, constitutes a title 'to certain actual graces, helping the penitent to bring forth worthy fruits of penance, to overcome temptation, to avoid relapse, and to amend his life. At the same time the infused virtues are restored and the merits of former good works lost by sin are regained. On zealous penitents, besides, special gifts are bestowed, such as peace of heart, cheerfulness of mind, and great spiritual con solation. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 21 Though the Sacrament of Penance is administered after the fashion of a judicial trial, still its administration deviates in many points from the customs of forensic practice. The chief points of divergence are the following : — 1. The aim which the secular judge has in view is to convict the criminal, and by the infliction of a penalty, proportioned to the nature and the greatness of the crime, to restore the order of justice violated by the offense; the acquittal of the innocent is only a secondary consideration. The sacramental judge, on the contrary, reestablishes the relations between God and man, destroyed by sin, not so much by imposing a punishment, as by effecting a reconciliation. His chief preoccupation is the indi vidual welfare of the penitent ; the verdict, therefore, is a sentence of absolution and release from guilt; however, the sinner must perform a certain penance, to be determined by the confessor. 2. It follows from this that the final sentence in the tribunal of penance, by which the case is decided, is always one of acquittal. Any other sentence passed in the sacramental court is only inter mediate, amounting to a temporary postponement of absolution. 3. In the ordinary session of justice, besides the judge and the accused, we find a prosecutor, witnesses, and pleaders. In the sacramental court there are only the judge and the sinner, who is his own prosecutor, pleading guilty. The proceedings are shrouded in perfect secrecy. The bench cites the criminal against his will, and holds him by force; at the confessional, the sinner presents himself of his own free will. The spiritual judge must credit the account of the penitent, be it in his favor or disfavor, since he alone can bear witness to the state of his conscience. Only when there is moral certainty of the opposite, may the priest distrust the statements of the sinner. On the contrary, the ordinary judge has the right to reject any plea advanced by the criminal.7 7 Cf . S. Th. Quodl. T. a. 12; S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. GOO s. ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 255; Miiller, 1. c. Sect. 107, in fine. 22 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT 3. Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance. The Council of Trent declared in its fourteenth session, with regard to this point: "The Sacrament of Penance is as neces sary to those who have incurred mortal sin after baptism, as baptism itself is to those who are not yet regenerated."8 It follows from this teaching of the Council that, since Baptism is indispensable to eternal salvation, penance is equally necessary. To use the exact language of theologians, it is necessary in re vel saltern in voto. Which means that those who can actually receive the Sacrament are bound to have recourse to it in order to be freed from their sins ; but that those for whom the recep tion of this Sacrament is for any reason impossible, will be cleansed from their sins by the desire of receiving it. This desire is always included in perfect contrition.9 For when Our Lord granted to His apostles the power of for giving or retaining sins, and thereby instituted the Sacrament of Penance for the remission of grievous sin, committed after Baptism, He evidently asserted it to be His will that the sinner should be subjected to the power of the keys by the reception of this Sacrament, the latter thus becoming a necessary means of obtaining pardon for grievous sin committed after baptismal regeneration. The power of the keys vested in the apostles and their successors would be a useless gift if the faithful, with out submitting to that power, could be released from their sins and gain the heavenly kingdom. The more so, as the priest possesses also the power of retaining sins; a power unfavora ble to the sinner; but which the sinner could elude if the Sac rament of Penance had not been made a necessary means of forgiveness. Nor would the sinner undergo the inconveniences connected with the reception of the Sacrament of Penance, if 8 Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 2. 9Cf. S. Th. Quodl. T. a. 12; S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VTT. n. 600 s. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 255; Miiller, 1. c. Sect. 107, in fine. NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 23 he were not persuaded of Christ's precept, imposing the Sacra ment of Penance as a means of reconciliation. Venial sins, however, are forgiven without reference to the Sacrament of Penance, as we shall show in another place.10 Thus, by divine precept, all who have incurred mortal sin after Baptism are bound to receive this Sacrament. The obli gation is absolute (per se) in danger of death ; for, in this case, the reception is necessary. Hence those are bound who are suffering of a dangerous disease ; a mother before her first con finement, or before any subsequent birth, if her travails are of an especially alarming nature; a criminal sentenced to death, before his execution ; and any one foreseeing the lack of another opportunity for his whole life of making a confession. There are other times in the course of our life when the obli gation of confession becomes actual and pressing; the Church, acting according to the intentions of Christ, has specified these occasions more particularly. For the Sacrament was not insti tuted merely to dispose man for his passage from this life, but also to heal his spiritual infirmities, to shield him against relapse into sin, and to strengthen him to lead a virtuous life. Conse quently, we would frustrate the object of the Sacrament if we were to postpone its reception to the hour of death. Per accidens it is obligatory to receive this Sacrament: (1) for a person who desires or is bound to receive holy Communion, and who happens to be in a state of mortal sin; (2) when the Sacrament of Penance is the only means for overcoming a temp tation or avoiding grievous sin; (3) when any one feels him self incapable of making an act of perfect contrition, and yet is by his duties required to be in a state of grace; for instance, if one has to administer a Sacrament, or simply because one realizes that it is wrong to remain in a state of enmity with God for any considerable period.11 10 See Sect, 4, p. 2<). 11 S. Alph. Lib. VL 1111. 602, G05 ; Gury-Ball. IT. n. 400; Rallerini, Ant. 24 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT The divine precept of approaching the Sacrament of Penance does not urge immediately that a mortal sin has been committed, for it is an affirmative command, and affirmative precepts do not press of their own accord, but only at certain times and under given circumstances. Besides, the Church's precept of an annual confession for all the faithful, who have fallen into mor tal sin, proves sufficiently that divine law does not enforce con fession immediately after committing mortal sin. The precept of the Church concerning the Sacrament of Pen ance binds only those who have sinned mortally. For the Church's intention is merely to define more clearly the extent of the divine command; so the ecclesiastical precept does not exceed the limits of the divine precept, and Christ commanded only that mortal sin should be confessed. Hence one who has committed no mortal sin is not subject to the law of the Church prescribing yearly confession. In practice, however, the ques tion has no import; for which of the faithful, guilty only of venial sin, would omit to go to confession at least once a year, or would think of receiving holy Communion without previously having confessed ? 12 He who has committed a mortal sin, but, forgetting all about it, confesses only venial sins, and some days later remembers again the mortal sin, is, according to a probable opinion, no longer subject to the precept of yearly confession; for, since S. J. Opus Theol. Mor. Vol. V. ; Tract. X. Sect. V. De Sacram. Poen. cp. III. n. 1025 ss. ; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 229. 12 Such is the teaching of nearly all the moralists; cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 667; Gury, I. n. 478; Scavini, De Sacram. Pcenit. n. 35. St. Thomas (Suppl. Q. 6. a. 3) teaches that he who has only venial sins to confess, satisfies the precept of the Church if he presents himself to the priest and declares that his conscience is free from mortal sin ; this will be counted as a confession. This opinion of St. Thomas is, however, contradicted by a large number of eminent theologians, — St. Antoninus, Billuart, Laymann, Lugo, Suarez, etc., — who appeal to the Tridentine decree (Sess. 13. cp. 5). which says in respect to the Lateran decree that it is (leterminatimnu dunni prcecepti. NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 25 the confession was valid, the mortal sin omitted by sheer for ge tfulness is forgiven ; and there only remains the obligation of submitting the forgotten sin to the power of the keys in the next confession.13 For the same reason alleged above, the law of the Church extends only to those who have reached the age of discernment, and whose minds are sufficiently developed to render them capa ble of sin. It is impossible 14 to fix any definite limit of age in this matter. Much depends on the child's personal gifts, its training and education. In each individual case the moral maturity of the child must be gauged by its general accomplish ments and its ways of acting. During the ordinary course of religious instruction, the pastor will find ample material on which to base a decision; in case of doubt, the testimony of the parents and the teachers may be taken into account.15 Seven years is usually assigned as the age at which children of average ability and proper training have arrived at the period of discre tion which enables them to understand the malice of mortal sin. Hence it becomes a duty to instruct the children for confes sion when they have reached about the seventh or eighth year, or, according to circumstances, even earlier. But even children of an inferior age, if they seem to have sufficient understanding, should not be allowed to die without absolution, though it be pronounced only conditionally. Of course, the priest will help them to elicit the necessary acts of contrition and purpose of amendment. This should be done though it be doubtful that the child has committed a sin or if it has forgotten the sin com mitted. It is not a good practice, therefore, to defer the instruction of children on this Sacrament to their ninth year or later; since it 13 Suarez and Laymann teach the opposite. Cf. Scavini, 1. c. n. 35, nota 1. 14 Cf Decretum Lateran. Concilii IV. cp. 21. 15 See Sect. 74, Children's Confessions. 26 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT does an injustice to the more intelligent children. Moreover, in the case of those children who are sick, this lack of early prepa ration is apt to deprive them of both the Sacrament of Penance and Extreme Unction, which is a serious matter, if they have been capable of committing mortal sin.16 The precept of the Church imposes annual confession, saltern semel in anno. Beyond this, time and season are not specified. Theologians interpret the law in general as follows : all who are conscious of mortal sin are bound to confess within the period between January 1 and December 31, or, what practically amounts to the same, within the time comprised between the Easter of one year and the Easter of the following year. For, whoever makes his confession with a view to his Easter Com munion, certainly does confess within the limits of a civil year, though the earlier or later date of Easter may make the inter val elapsing between the confessions more than a year. Since the precept of yearly confession refers only to mortal sins, the common teaching of theologians is that, whosoever has accused himself at Easter time of venial sin only, but falls into mortal sin before the year has expired, must go to confession again before the end of the year, in order to fulfill the ecclesi astical precept.17 The faithful, however, adds Lehmkuhl, should be exhorted never to put off the reception of the Sacrament, or at least the eliciting of an act of perfect contrition, when they have had the misfortune of offending God grievously; for a soul in the state of mortal sin is in a most deplorable and dangerous condition. Still we are not authorized to insist on this as being an obliga tion imposed by the Church, since some distinguished theolo gians maintain the contrary.18 16 Lehmkuhl, I. Tract VI. n. 1202, 3. 7 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 669 ; Gury, 1. c. n. 479 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 1204. . Thorn. Suppl. Q. 8, art. 5 ad 4, and St. Bonaventure, Compend. Theol. Lib. VI. cp 25, Confess, necessitas, support this view saltern tacite. Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 1204. NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 27 He who one year, whether by his own fault or not, fails to make his confession, but during the next confesses all his sins, satisfies thereby the obligations with respect to both years, in the case, at least, when, during the current year, he has committed a mortal sin which he includes in his confession ; for he has ful filled the precept which enjoins reconciliation with God. If, on the contrary, the penitent has committed only venial sins in the current year, and confessed them along with the mortal sins of the previous year, and later on falls into grievous sin, he is obliged to make another confession in order to comply with the law of the Church.19 He who has not confessed for a whole year, must, according to the more common and probable opinion, confess as soon as possible; because the Church has defined the period for fulfill ing the precept, not for the purpose of limiting the obligation to a determinate date, but to incite men to perform their duty in proper time (non ad finiendam sed ad urgendam obligationem) . Hence, a man would sin against the precept as often as he shirked an opportunity of making the neglected confession, thereby renewing the intention not to obey the law.20 He who has sinned grievously, and foresees that in the course of the year he shall be prevented from going to confession, must avail himself of the presently occurring opportunity, for in these circumstances the duty of confessing is actually press ing. The precept of the Church prescribes, moreover, that the faithful confess their sins sincerely (fideliter). By a bad confes sion we cannot discharge our duty. This was distinctly con firmed by Alexander VII, condemning a proposition to the contrary. (Prop. 14.) 19 Cf. Scavini, De Sacram. Poenit. n. 36, who follows Suarez, Lay maim, Lugo, Salmanticenses, etc. Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 1202. 20 Lacroix, De prsecepto Confess, n. 2003; S. Alph. 1. c. n. 668; Scavini, I. c. n. 36, Q. 4; Gury, 1. c. n. 478, nota 3; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 1206. 28 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT A further provision of the Later an decree, to confess pro- prio sacerdoti, which formerly obliged the faithful to make their annual confession to their own parish priest, bishop, vicar- general, or the Pope, has long been abrogated by a recognized universal contrary practice. Confession may, therefore, be made to any priest duly authorized by the bishop.21 The excommunication for the violation of the Church's pre cept of annual confession, as of Paschal Communion, is not a pajna lain?, but a poena ferendw sentential. The ardent wish of the Church is tLat her children should confess frequently during the year. This is apparent from the wording of the law. Frequent confession is of the greatest use fulness to all without exception, to the sinner as well as the just. It destroys the evil inclinations born by sin and averts its terrible consequences. 1. Although, absolutely considered, a single confession made worthily and with due preparation is able to arrest us in the downward career of vice, to extinguish the long-nourished flame of passion, to correct our evil inclinations and habits, to confirm us in grace, and to insure us against relapse ; yet this is not the ordinary course of things. When we are cleansed from our sins by the Sacrament, we have yet to face a long struggle with the remains of sin; for the wounds inflicted by sin, though closed by the grace of absolution, leave us in a weakened condition, and may easily reopen. To effect a perfect cure of the soul, and to purify its inclinations and habits, there exists no more 21 Cf. Bened. XIV. De Syn. dioec. 1. II. cp. 14, 1-5. Hence a parish priest, who would make his parishioners confess to him, is guilty of sin, since such indiscreet zeal, or unworthy jealousy, might give occasion to sacrilegious confessions. Compare what St. Thomas (1. c. art. 4 et 5) wrote even before it was allowed to confess indifferently to any priest having faculties ; that a priest would sin, if he were not ready to give leave to any individual to make his confession to another priest. It was distinctly understood before that time that one might confess to any priest who had been authorized by the proprius sacerdos to hear the confession. Cf. Miiller, 1. c. Sect. 118, n. 6-4; Lehrnkuhl, 1. c. n. 1205. FORGIVENESS OF VENIAL SIN 29 efficacious means than frequent confession. It leads us to greater watchfulness over ourselves, constitutes an act of hu mility, forces us to renew our good resolutions; it equips us with many special graces, intended to assist us in our spiritual warfare, and to enable us to persevere in the paths of virtue in spite of the manifold difficulties which we encounter. 2. Frequent confession is also the most powerful means to counteract the disastrous consequences of sin. The most fatal of these are: blindness of the soul, hardening of the heart and final impenitence. As often as we go to confession, the great salutary truths of our religion are recalled to our mind. We reflect on God and our last end, on Jesus Christ and His love and mercy, on the wickedness and the dreadful punishments of sin, on our august duties, and on God's holy law. Frequent confession is an antidote against the hardening of the heart, since it arouses in us a profound hatred of sin, love for God, fear of His wrath, and the desire of accomplishing His will. Finally, as at every confession we again banish sin from our hearts, frequent confession is the best preparation for a penitent life and a happy death. Also the just derives great benefits from frequent confession; he is more and more cleansed from the lesser faults, committed daily ; the grace and love of God are increased in his heart, and special helps to overcome his failings and weakness are granted to him. The oftener the just man approaches this holy Sacra ment, the more fully does he partake of its peculiar graces.22 4. Forgiveness of Venial Sin. By divine and ecclesiastical precept we are bound only to con fess mortal sins; there is no obligation to confess venial sins; these may be forgiven without receiving the Sacrament of Penance. 22 Pauli Segneri, S. J., Instructio Poenitent. cp. XV : Fructus percepti ex frequenti confessione. 30 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACEAMENT "Venial sins, by which we are not shut out from the grace of God and into which we fall more frequently, though they be rightly and profitably declared in confession, as the practice of pious people demonstrates, may be omitted without guilt, and be expiated by many other methods." Such is the teaching of the Council of Trent.23 Before enumerating the methods by which venial sins can be remitted we wish to observe : — - 1. The most necessary condition for the remission of any sin, and therefore also of venial sin, is contrition. So long as a man is attached to sin and does not detest it, God cannot forgive it, for He is infinitely holy and just. It is not, however, absolutely necessary to specify the sins and make a formal act of sorrow for them, otherwise David's prayer Ab occultis meis munda me (Ps. xviii. 13) would be useless and the remission of forgotten sins impossible. Virtual contrition is sufficient, i.e. the sinner must be actually contrite for all his sins, and from universal mo tives which apply even to those sins of which he is unconscious or which he has forgotten. He must also have the intention of including in that contrition all the sins by which he has offended God. Although venial sin is more easily forgiven than mortal, yet this forgiveness is impossible without at least a virtual con trition for it. For when a man falls into venial sin he turns inordinately to creatures, not, however, as in mortal sin, by entirely abandoning God, his last end, and unreservedly giving himself up to creatures. This attachment to creatures, however, makes it necessary that he should, if not formally and explicitly, at least virtually and implicitly, turn away from them and com bat this guilty affection for creatures by a contrary act of the will. A work done to please God, or a mere act of love with out abhorrence of sin, does not remit that sin. As venial sin may coexist with the general habit of the love of God, so it may coexist with a particular act of that love ; for a man can make 23 Sess. XIV. cp. 5. FORGIVENESS OF VENIAL SIN 31 an act of perfect love or even an act of perfect contrition and still retain a leaning toward some particular venial sin.24 2. Since the presence of venial sin is compatible with that of sanctifying grace, and since a man can be sorry for one venial sin without being necessarily sorry for another, it follows that one venial sin may be forgiven and others left unforgiven. 3. A penitent who is burdened with both mortal and venial sins may by perfect contrition or the Sacrament of Penance be freed from his mortal sins and yet be left with his venial sins still upon him because he is not sorry for these. 4. Hence, if a man is in the state of mortal sin, his venial sins cannot be remitted without the mortal sin being at the same time forgiven; for God cannot forgive one who will not acknowledge and love Him as Lord and God ; and, according to 24 Cf. S. Th. De Malo, Q. 7, art. 12 ad 4, and Sumraa Theol. IIT. Q. 87, art. 1. St. Thomas demands for the forgiveness of mortal sin a perfectior pceni- tentia, that is, that a man actually detest his mortal sins so far as he can ; sed non hoc requiritur ad remissionem venialium peccatorum ; non tamen sufficit habitualis displicentia quae habetur per habitum caritatis, vel pcenitentice virtutis, quid, sic caritas non compateretur peccatum veniale, quod patet esse falsum. . . . Hence follows, continues the holy Doctor, that there is required a virtualis displicentia, puta cum aliquis hoc modo fertur secundum qffectum in Deum et res divinas, ut, quidquid sibi occurreret, quod eum ab hoc motu retardaret, dis- pliceret ei et doleret se commississe, etiamsi aciu de illo non cogitaret, quod tamen non sufficit ad remissionem peccati mortalis nisi quantum ad peccata oblita post diligentem inquisitionem. III. Q. 87, art. 1. Scavini, 1. c. n. 13. There is an apparent opposition, but it is only apparent, between this teaching of St. Thomas and that of Suarez (Disp. II. Sect. 3. n. 8 sq. in Sum. III. Q. 87, art. 2) and other theologians, who hold that venial sins can be forgiven without formal contrition by an act of supreme love of God. For Suarez distinguishes a twofold perfection in this love, an objective secundum exten- sionem ad venialia peccata, and an intensive ex conatu potentice. Only the objective love which extends to venial sin is, according to this learned theo logian, able to atone for venial sin, because it implies an aversion of the will from sin in consequence of that love. Hence, it will effect the remission of all venial sins quoad culpam if it extends virtually to all, or of some only, in so far as these are affected by the act of love. This aversion of the will from sin is nothing else than a virtualis displicentia; in other words, contri tion. 32 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT the doctrine of St. Thomas, just as mortal sin is forgiven by the influx of sanctifying grace, so the remission of venial sin is de pendent on a movement of grace or love, which therefore must be actually present.25 Venial sins are forgiven : - 1. By the Sacrament of Penance, and that directly and ex opere operato, when they are submitted in confession to the power of the keys with formal contrition and purpose of amend ment. 2. "By many other means/' 26 such as : — (a) All the Sacraments ; they remit sins ex opere operato, and especially those sins which are opposed to the particular end of the Sacrament. For the object of every Sacrament is the sanc- tification of souls, and hence the removal of all that hinders this sanctification. Now venial sins in particular, by hindering the conferring of richer graces, are an obstacle in the way of attaining sanctity. Cardinal Lugo, in treating this subject, illus trates it by the attitude of two friends: "Even where, in the strict nature of things, we cannot expect that the influx of grace should cause the remission of sins, yet it is in accordance with good feeling that where fresh and closer ties of friendship have been formed, little offences should be condoned. If, then, the influx or increase of grace is a new bond of friendship between God and the just man, uniting him more intimately with God, an embrace of love, so to speak, and a kiss of peace, it is prob able and reasonable to suppose that there is granted also a re mission of the smaller sins which have been retracted." 27 It is always, however, necessary and sufficient to elicit at least a virtual or implicit contrition, contained in a pious and supernatural affection toward God, which is opposed to venial 25 Cf. ITT. Q. 87, art. 4 et 2. On the diverging views of Scotus and Durandus, compare Suarez, De Sacram. Poenit. Disp. II. Sect. 2, 11. 2. 16 Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5. 27 Disp. IX. Sect. 3, n. 53. FORGIVENESS OF VENIAL SIN 83 sins, and is consequently a virtual horror and retraction of the O o same. Not all the Sacraments, however, effect this forgiveness in the same manner. Next to the Sacrament of Penance, Baptism and Extreme Unction have a peculiar power, because they were instituted by Christ for the very purpose of forgiving sins. If an adult who had been purified of original sin and of his mortal sins by perfect love and contrition (the Baptism of desire), but, on account of his attachment to venial sins, was not yet freed of these, were to receive Baptism, all his venial sins for which he had at least virtual contrition would be forgiven through this Sacrament. For, according to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Baptism effects a new birth, and in consequence the remission of sins, with the exception, of course, of those venial sins which the newly baptized person has not yet renounced.29 Of Extreme Unction the Council of Trent, referring to James v. 15, teaches that it forgives the sins which defile the soul, and removes the remains of sin.30 With respect to the Holy Eucharist the same Council 31 de clares that although the forgiveness of sin is certainly not the principal fruit of this Sacrament, yet, in accordance with our Lord's commands, we should receive it in order thereby to be freed from our daily trespasses and strengthened against mortal sin. Hence there is no doubt that the Holy Eucharist removes venial sins. But theologians do not agree how it produces this effect — whether, as in the case of the three preceding Sacra ments, immediately, ex opere operate, or only mediately, ex opere operantis. The champions of both views appeal to St. 28 Cf. S. Th. ITT. Q. 87, art. 1 et 3. 29 Cf. Trid. Sess. V. Deer, de peccato orig. n. 5; Sess. XTV. de poen. cp. 3 ; S. Th. III. Q. 86, art. 2 ad 1. 30 Sess. XTV. de Extr. Unct. cp. 2, can. 2. 81 Sess. XIII. can. 5 et cp. 2. 34 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT Thomas, who on the one hand teaches that the Holy Eucharist acts after the manner of bodily food, repairing what in the heat of concupiscence we have lost by venial sin, and on the other hand declares the peculiar grace (res sacramenti) of this Sacra ment to be caritas, and that not only quantum ad habitum sed etiam quantum ad actum ; in other words charity is elicited in this Sacrament, and through its operation venial sins are forgiven.32 Suarez interprets St. Thomas as teaching that the Holy Eu charist effects the remission of venial sins ex opere operato, and this interpretation would seem to have the preference over that of theologians who, with St. Alphonsus, insisting on the words just quoted, hold that the Sacrament of the Eucharist works ex opere operands.™ The three remaining Sacraments, of Confirmation, Orders, and Marriage, do not so directly imply forgiveness of venial sin ; still they pour into the soul of the recipient a new grace, and so they, too, must be considered as remitting venial sins when no obsta cle is put in the way.34 The range of this power varies accord ing as the grace conferred in the Sacrament is more or less opposed to some particular sin or kind of sins. The most effi cacious of the last-named Sacraments in eliminating venial sin is that of Confirmation, because its influence extends to the whole life of faith and grace, strengthening and bringing it to perfection.35 Holy Orders give grace to the recipient, so that he may attain the holiness and perfection that befit his state, and in consequence they also purify from sin.36 Finally, Mat rimony remits venial sins because it confers the grace by which concupiscence is curbed and restrained, and by which the recipi ents are enabled to fulfil their duties of mutual sanctification. 82 III. Q. 79, art. 4. 83 Suarez, Comment, ad III. Thomse, Q. 79, art. 4. Cf. Disputatio 63, Sect. 10, n. 1. 84 Cf. S. Thorn. Q. 87, art. 2 et 3. 85 Cf. S. Thorn. Q. 72, art. 7 ad 2. «c Cf. S. Thorn. Suppl. Q. 26, art. 1 et 3. FORGIVENESS OF VENIAL SIN 35 (6) Venial sins are likewise removed by the holy sacrifice of the Mass, which of its own nature is a sacrifice of atonement, a sacrifitium vere propitiatorium.37 It works this forgiveness, as theologians teach, per modum impetrationis, therefore mediately, by obtaining for the sinner from God the grace of contrition or other virtues, excluding affection for sin.38 (c) The sacramentals also destroy venial sins. "By the use of the sacramentals the faithful confess and awaken their faith, hope, reverence for God, a longing for interior holiness and sin- lessness, or a horror of sin, and sorrow for past offences. The symbols blessed or used by the Church confer a grace which produces or strengthens desires and acts of different virtues, which in turn destroy venial sin and atone for it." 39 Hence a sacramental possesses power of remitting sin in proportion as its character and the blessing of the Church cause it to excite or strengthen acts of virtue in the faithful. The Church has a sacramental especially designed for the remission of venial sins, and makes use of it on those occasions when the faithful need greatest purity of heart. It consists of the two prayers: Mis- ereatur vestri, etc., and Indulgentiam, absolutionem, etc.40 To these we may add the use of holy water, which, in accordance with the intention and prayers of the Church when she blesses it, is designed to ward off the devil's influence from animate and inanimate creatures and to protect them from impurity, sickness, and harm.41 The effect of the other sacramentals in procuring remission of venial sins is not so direct. The more they are of their own nature suited to awaken contrition, and the more directly the intention in the use of them is directed to 87 Trid. Sess. XXII. de Sacrif. Missae, cp. 2. 38 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 311. 39 Tappehorn, Die lassliche Sunde, p. 55. 40 Some theologians attribute to these two prayers an effect ex opere operato. Suarez, Disp. 12, Sect. 2, n. 6. 41 Cf. S. Thorn. III. Q. 87, art. 3. 36 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT the cleansing from sin, so much the more effectual are they in this respect.42 (d) Contrition by itself also procures the remission of venial sins, and more especially when it is perfect (contritio), since, then, it destroys mortal sin and is, therefore, still more efficacious in the case of venial. Perfect contrition removes all venial sins if it is universal, that is to say if it extends to all venial sins, or if a man is disposed never more to commit venial sin and would be sorry for all his past sins, if they were present to his mind. On the other hand, an act of perfect contrition does not remit all venial sins, if it extends only to this or that particular venial sin, or if a person is disposed to avoid only one or qther of his venial sins.43 According to the teaching of the more numerous and distin guished theologians, even imperfect contrition remits venial sins; this imperfect contrition (attritio) must spring from some supernatural motive referring to God — such for instance as the thought that venial sin is a violation of the obedience or rever ence due to God.44 By attritio the affection toward sin is en tirely uprooted and the will is withdrawn from the sin, man turns again to God as his last end, and expiates his fault by his sorrow.45 (e) Moreover, the "love of God above all things" remits venial sins if it is actual and formally or virtually opposed to vepial sin.46 (/) Lastly, venial sins are forgiven by good works done from 42 Cf. Muller, 1. c. Sect. 110, II. n. 4. 43 Cf. S. Thorn. III. Q. 87, a. 2 ; S. Bonaventure, In IV. Sent. Dist. 20, P. 1, a. 1, Q. 2 ad 3. 44 Cf . Lugo, De Sacram. Poenit. Disp. IX. Sect. 2, n. 29 et seq. ; Suarez, Disp. XI. Sect. 3; Ripalda, De Ente Supernatural!, Tom. II. Lib. IV. Disp. 97, Sect. 4 (Ed. nova, Parisiis, 1870). 45 For the arguments of those who oppose this teaching, see Suarez, Disp. XI. Sect. 3, n. 5 ; Gury, I. n. 457 ; Scavini, 1. c. n. 11 ss. 46 Cf. Suarez, Disp. 11, Sect. 3, nn. 8-10. CONSTITUENT PARTS OF SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 37 a motive of penance (ex affectu pcenitentice) , especially those to which Holy Scripture assigns the virtue of destroying venial sin. Such are: prayer47 (John xiv. 13s.; xvi. 23), almsgiving and fasting, especially the works of mercy and mortification (Ecclus. hi. 33; iv. 1-11; Tob. iv. 11; Dan. iv. 24; Matt, v. 7; John iii. 5-10; 1 Reg. vii. 5, etc.; 1 Esdras viii. 21, etc.). Cf. S. Thorn. II. II. Q. 147, art. 1 et 3.48 5. The Constituent Parts of the Sacrament of Penance in General. As in the other Sacraments a distinction is made between the matter and the form, so too in the Sacrament of Penance; but with a certain difference, which appears from the fact that the Council of Trent speaks of the matter of this Sacrament as a quasi-materia. The Catechismus Romanus 49 states this more fully when it says : This Sacrament is distinguished from the other Sacraments especially in this, that the matter of the other Sacraments is a substance produced by nature or art, while in the Sacrament of Penance it is the acts of the penitent, especially the contrition, confession, and satisfaction ; yet it is not because these acts are not to be considered as truly matter of the Sac rament that the Holy Council calls them quasi-materia (aas it were the matter"), but because they are not materially or exter nally applied, like water in Baptism and chrism in Confirmation. These three acts of the penitent are styled by the Council of Trent the parts (partes) of the Sacrament of Penanee "in so far 47 There are three prayers which have quite a special efficacy in this mat ter : one has come to us from the Holy Ghost through David, the other from Our Lord, and the third from the Church ; they are the seven penitential psalms, the Our Father, and the Confiteor. Cf. S. Thorn. III. Q. 87, art. 3 ; I. II. Q. 74, art. 8 ad 6. 48 On the remission of venial sins, defiling the faithful who die in grace see S. Thorn. De Malo, Q. 7, a. 11 ; Suarez, Disp. 11, Sect. 4 ; Disp. 47, Sect. 1 ; Palmieri, Tract, de Pcenitentia, p. 190 ss. ; Oswald, Eschatologie, p. 84 ss. ; Tappehorn, Die lassliche Siinde, Sect. 11, p. 61 ss. 49 Cat. Rom. P. II. Cap. V. Q. XII. 38 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT as they are required by God's ordinance in the penitent for the completeness of the Sacrament and for the entire and perfect remission of sin." 50 To these must be added the absolution of the priest, which constitutes the form. Hence we have to con sider as parts of the Sacrament: (1) contrition, (2) confession, (3) satisfaction, and (4) absolution.51 The three acts of the penitent have not all, however, trfe same importance. The satisfaction belongs to the Sacrament only in so far as its integrity and its complete efficacy are concerned; hence it is not an essential, but only an integral part of the Sac rament. It is true that the power of imposing on the penitent a suitable satisfaction belongs essentially to the administration of this Sacrament; hence also the penitent is obliged to accept this penance and to declare himself willing to perform it. The actual performance of the penance, however, is not necessary in order that the Sacrament should produce its effect.52 The confession or self-accusation of the penitent in presence of the priest is the principal matter of this Sacrament, for this is necessary in se and per se, in order that the confessor may form a judgment and administer the Sacrament. Contrition is a necessary constituent of the Sacrament but merely in se not per se ipsum, and only as contained in the ac cusation, which is an outward manifestation of the contrition ; 50 Cat. Rom. 1. c. 51 Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 2, 3 et 4, can. 4 ; S. Thorn. III. Q. 86, art. 6 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. 1. n. 2 ss. 52 Suarez, Disp. 20, Sect. 3, n. 8, and Disp. 58, Sect. 1, n. 3 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Cap. III. Sect. 1, n. 258 ; Aertnys, 1. c. Cap. III. art, 1, n. 174. Without satis faction the Sacrament is there in its essence, but it is not quite perfect, as a man without legs is, indeed, a man essentially, but not a complete and per fect one. For this Sacrament was instituted for the complete removal of sin, both guilt and punishment ; thus it produces not only remission of the guilt and of the eternal punishment (in which may be included a portion of the temporal punishment), in consequence of the absolution, but also remission of the temporal punishment by the performance of the penance imposed; hence the satisfaction is a part of the Sacrament which produces these effects. Cf. Lugo, I)e Poen. Disp. 12, n. 40. REMOTE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 39 for contrition is not per se subject to the senses, but must be outwardly shown in some way in order to become manifest.53 "The contrite accusation, therefore, realizes all the conditions of the matter in the Sacraments." 54 Theologians draw a further distinction in this Sacrament be tween the proximate and the remote matter (materia proximo, et remota). Proximo, materia consists of the acts which the peni tent has to perform, and remota materia of the sins committed after Baptism which the penitent has repented of and confessed and for which he must do satisfaction.55 6. Of the Remote Matter of the Sacrament of Penance in Particular. The remote matter of this Sacrament are, as we have already seen, the sins committed after Baptism. Those committed be fore Baptism are forgiven entirely in Baptism, wherefore they 63 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 258. 54 Aertnys, 1. c. Cap. III. art. 1, n. 174. 55 Theologians do not agree as to whether the acts of the penitent are in truth matter belonging to the inner constitution of the Sacrament — in the same way, for instance, as the washing with water is an intimate element of Baptism — or whether they belong to the Sacrament only in a wider sense; in other words, whether the acts of the penitent are materia ex qua or only materia circa quam of the Sacrament. The Scotists place the whole essence of the Sacrament in the absolution, and teach that the acts of the penitent are only materia circa quam and conditio sine qua now, in such a manner, however, that without these the absolution cannot be sacramental ; hence they have no hesitation in considering these acts essential. The Thomists, and by far the greater number of theologians, consider the acts of the penitent as materia ex qua, because they do in fact belong essentially to the constitution of the external act which produces the interior grace. This doctrine unquestionably carries the day, " unless," as Lehmkuhl says, " one chooses to call the acts of the penitent materia ex qua, not as having their origin in the penitent, but as matter presented judicially to the con fessor, a question about which I do not wish to argue, for that acts of the penitent — sorrow and accusation — are necessary, and should be elicited, is beyond all doubt." Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 256. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor, 1. c. cp. 1, n. 14. 40 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACEAMENT are not, properly speaking, subject to the Sacrament of Pen ance. Again, a man is not under the Church's jurisdiction till he is baptized, and this Sacrament of Penance is administered by virtue of the jurisdiction which the Church exercises over her members. The sins which are confessed are not) however, materia ex qua, as is water in the Sacrament of Baptism, by means of which the Sacrament is conferred, but materia circa quam, with regard to which the penitent performs the necessary acts and receives absolution. As, for example, in a lawsuit the matter proposed for decision and the sentence are called the matter of the case, so here the sins which form the object of the sacramental process instituted for the remission of sins are regarded as the remote matter of penance.56 This remote mat ter is divided into : - 1. Necessary and free matter (necessaria et libera), i.e. neces sary as a consequence of the divine command, by which definite sins (a definite materia remotd) must be submitted to the sacra mental tribunal and the power of the keys, so that the penitent who wilfully neglects this course cannot receive the Sacrament validly. By free matter we understand those sins which the penitent voluntarily confesses whilst not bound to do so by divine law. 2. Certain and doubtful (certa et dubia), i.e. matter which in the judgment of the confessor is a certain and valid object of absolution; or matter regarding which absolution cannot be pronounced without misgiving. 3. Finally, sufficient and insufficient (sufficiens et insufficiens), i.e. such matter as suffices for the administering of the Sacra ment and the granting of absolution, whether the matter be necessary or free, and such over which sacramental absolution cannot be pronounced. Necessary matter comprises all grievous sins committed after Baptism and not at any former time submitted directly to the 66 Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. Cap. III. n. 171. BE MOTE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 41 power of the keys; of all and each of them the penitent is obliged to accuse himself. Sins are remitted directly when they have been remitted per se quite independently of other sins. This is the case when they have been explicitly confessed to a priest having the required jurisdiction. Sins are forgiven indirectly when they are re mitted in conjunction with other sins, and not per se. This hap pens when a penitent omits a sin through invincible ignorance or forgetfulness or inability; or if a confessor without proper jurisdiction, for serious reasons, gives absolution. In both cases such sins are remitted in conjunction with the other sins which have been explicitly confessed and over which the priest had jurisdiction. This must be so, for a penitent cannot at the same time experience God's mercy by the remission of the sins which he has confessed and also be an object of God's wrath with re spect to his other sins ; moreover, the inpouring grace, through the remission of the sins that have been confessed, is not com patible with the presence of mortal sin remaining in the soul. It is in consequence of Christ's institution that all the sins committed after Baptism and not yet directly forgiven, and also the sins only indirectly forgiven, must of necessity be revealed to the priest; for in appointing the priest to be His representa tive, Christ made him the judge before whom all mortal sins must be brought, that, in virtue of the power of the keys, he might pass sentence of loosing or binding.57 Over sins which have not yet been directly remitted the confessor has pronounced no judgment, for they were unknown to him; hence, in accord ance with Christ's command, even sins indirectly forgiven must be submitted by confession to the power of the keys in order that they may obtain direct forgiveness.58 57 Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5. 58 Lacroix, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. P. II. n. 595 ss. ; Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tr. VI. Disp. 1, q. 4, cp. 5. Hence Alexander VII condemned the proposition (Prop. II. daranata) that sins omitted in confession, whether 42 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT The following classes of sins are sufficient and free matter for confession : — (a) The venial sins committed after Baptism. These are mat ter sufficient because Christ gave His priests power to forgive all sins, therefore also venial sin; and the Council of Trent teaches that it is good and wholesome to confess venial sins. Since, however, the recommendation of the Council imposes no obligation to confess them, as they may be remitted by other means, they are free matter. (b) Sins already directly forgiven are also free matter. Since they have already been remitted by sacramental absolution they may be said to exist no longer. Nevertheless, though they have been forgiven, one may renew his sorrow for them, and on that account the absolution may be given again validly, even if no other sins be presented. This is proved by the gen eral practice of the faithful and the unanimous teaching of theologians, who declare that contrite confession of a past sin is always materia proxima of the Sacrament; a sin which has received forgiveness remains always a sin of the past and so can be made the object of sorrow and of sacramental accusation.59 Moreover the highest authority in the Church favors this view; for Benedict XI teaches 60 : " Though it be not necessary, yet we consider it very wholesome to repeat the confession of special sins on account of the humiliation which they cause." Although, in these words, the Holy Father speaks of humiliation only as the advantage to be drawn from the confession of pre viously forgiven sin, it is quite evident that he does not intend to exclude the great benefits which the absolution pronounced they have been forgotten, or not confessed on account of danger of death, or for any other reason, need not be mentioned again in confession. 59 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 427, dub. 2; Gury (Ed. Rom.), n. 418; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 17; Miiller, 1. c. Sect. Ill; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 172. Q. I. 60 Extravag. com. 1. 5. tit. 7 (de privileg.), c. I. Const. "Inter cunctas." REMOTE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 43 over these sins must bring, for the confessions of which the Pope speaks are made only in order to obtain absolution.61 Thus, besides this salutary humiliation, the confession of for given sins and the absolution again pronounced over them cause an increase of sanctifying grace and a remission of tem poral punishment, augment the hatred for sin, and dispose the penitent, who has only human shortcomings or venial sins of less moment to disclose, better toward a sincere contrition. How in this case the true notion of " absolution," which is in fact identical with the influx of sanctifying grace, is preserved, re mains for the dogmatic theologian to settle; for our purpose it is enough to indicate briefly Lugo's explanation. "As," says the learned Cardinal, "after making a vow I can bind myself afresh to its observance by renewing the vow in a manner which binds me independently of the former promise, so God may again waive His right of punishing sin, by a renewal of the com pact with man to pardon past sins, and this repeated renuncia tion of the divine right is as efficacious as the first, and is made by a new infusion of sanctifying grace." 62 Since venial sins and mortal sins already directly remitted are free matter, it is not necessary to accuse one's self of them with such accuracy and perfection regarding number and species as in the case of necessary matter, even if there be nothing else to confess. In this case we cannot urge the two reasons for which the accusation of mortal sins not yet confessed must include the details of species and number, for neither has God ordered it, nor is it required in order that the judicial power may be prop erly exercised with regard to them. Hence it suffices to accuse one's self in such a way as to enable the priest to form some sort of judgment. That this is possible if the sin is confessed at least generically (generice) is seen from other cases. For in stance, a man who knows that on one occasion he sinned gravely 61 Cf . Ballerini, 1. c. ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 263. 62 Lugo, De Pcenit. d. 13, n. 73. 44 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT against the sixth commandment but has forgotten the exact specific nature of the sin, or that he has sinned gravely but has quite forgotten what the sin was, is obliged, as all theologians teach, to confess that he has sinned gravely against purity, or, in the latter instance, that he had committed a mortal sin. Many extend this obligation to a sin which is only doubtfully mortal, of which the penitent cannot any longer remember the species, and which moreover is the only sin weighing upon his conscience.63 We have viewed our subject with respect to the validity of the Sacrament. Let us see how in practice a general accusa tion may be made, and how far such general accusations are valid and permissible matter for absolution. 1. A penitent may accuse himself thus: "I have sinned and I accuse myself of the sins of my whole life," and if the con fessor has no other knowledge of these sins, such an accusation is general in the widest sense ; to this class belongs also an accu sation conveyed by an expression of sorrow without any explicit avowal of sin. 2. A more particular but still general accusation is: "I accuse myself of all the mortal sins which I have committed." 3. Yet more precise is the accusation: "I accuse myself of all the lies I have told, or of all the sins I have committed against purity, or justice, or this or that particular virtue," thus pointing out the virtue or the command against which he has sinned, but without giving the ultimate specific character (in- fima species) of the sin. 4. Finally, the penitent may declare the ultimate species (infima species) of the sin without determining the precise act and without the specific circumstances and their number ; e.g. I accuse myself of all profanations of the name of God, of all sinful looks dangerous to purity, of all deception in my dealings with my neighbor, etc. 63 Cf. Lefimkuhi, I. c. n. 263. EEMOTE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 45 When there is question in the confession of materia libera : — 1. The last two methods of general accusation are sufficient for the valid and licit administration of the Sacrament, whether the whole confession consist of such a general accusation or whether this general accusation be added to a confession of venial sins to make sure of contrition. The second method of accusation might perhaps be allowed; but if any one wished to make the whole confession by this second method of general accusation, embracing in this manner sins already confessed without some sort of a special mention of venial sins lately committed, the confessor might well object and could not easily give absolution unless in case of some pressing necessity. If, however, sins not yet explicitly confessed are declared, and a general accusation is added of the second kind for the sake of security, this may be considered as sufficient both quoad valo rem and quoad liceitatem. For the accusation, "I have sinned mortally," is not quite vague, as it expresses a certain degree of sinfulness which may very well be (and at times is all that can be obtained) the object of a judicial sentence. 2. An entirely vague accusation, although there be necessary matter, may be accepted as being sufficient in cases of extreme necessity — when a detailed accusation is impossible and abso lution must be given. For instance: — (a) At the time of death, when the dying man can no longer speak or is unconscious, and has already shown signs of a desire for absolution; for, according to the Roman Ritual, such a man is to be absolved (absolvendus est), and this official book of the Church suggests nothing about making the absolution condi tional. (6) In other cases of impending death, when the desire for absolution is expressed by any sort of sign ; e.g. in a shipwreck where there is not time to make a full accusation. (c) If a penitent is too ignorant or too weak-headed, even with the help of the confessor's questions, to render an accurate 46 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT account, at least absolution may at times be given to such a penitent if he has not had it for a long period.64 3. When it is a question of venial sins only (on the supposition that these either alone or in conjunction with other doubtful matter have been confessed), the confessor may not give absolu tion for an accusation which is quite vague, for such an accusa tion offers no entirely certain matter for absolution, and from what is allowed in danger of death we may not conclude that the same will suffice for the validity of absolution in cases where there is no urgency. A confession, for instance, delivered by a messenger is permissible only in the case of imminent death where no other means can be devised; this is clear from the propositions condemned by Clement VIII and Paul V. In any other case, the unanimous voice of theologians declares such a confession invalid. Hence if valid matter can be pre sented, it must be done if absolution is to be given. This is clear, too, on the merits of the case itself. One may always presume that the desire which a dying man expresses for absolution is at least a hesitating, if not definite, acknowledg ment of having committed mortal sin by the fact that he con siders absolution necessary and desirable; but if a man, though able, accuses himself of no definite sins to his confessor, it is tantamount to a declaration that he has committed only venial sins. Now the confession of mortal sin in general contains something definite; whereas an accusation of venial sin in gen eral is altogether vague; hence the causa judicialis in this case is quite unknown, and no sentence can be passed where the charge is unknown and undetermined. Finally, it is quite foreign to the practice of the Church to make a confession by the formula, "I have no mortal sins; I am sorry for my venial sins, and I ask absolution." He who evades, therefore, a fuller accusation of his venial sins, when he could make one, is unworthy of absolution, which is intended to be 64 Renter, Neoconfessarius, P. II. Cap. III. Art. IV. n. 117. REMOTE MATTER OF THE SACLiAMENT OF PENANCE 47 given by the Church only to those who make a definite accusa tion.65 Though, adds Laymann,66 no one is bound by any law to confess venial sins, yet whoever wishes to receive sacramental absolution must accuse himself at least of some venial sin, in specie?1 Suarez says, and rightly, that the validity of such an accusation may be defended speculatively, but that practically it is to be condemned on account of the uncertainty of the matter. "I declare, then/' he continues, "that, though we are not strictly bound to confess the species of the venial sins, yet, supposing that we wish absolution, we are bound to offer certain and definite matter. But in case of necessity or where it is impossible to make a more definite accusation (as might happen in the case of a man who is dying) such matter would doubtlessly be suf ficient." 68 "Since, then," concludes Lehmkuhl, "outside the cases of necessity or impossibility a vague confession of only venial sins does not supply definite matter, it is not sufficient to add it to the particular confession in order to have a more secure ground for a valid absolution than by the accusation of the smaller sins committed since the last confession, unless the confessor from previous knowledge of the penitent can decide whether suffi ciently definite matter is presented to him in this vague general assertion." 69 In consequence the following rules are recommended in practice : — 65 At accuxare se de venialibus in genere dicendo v. g. Accuso me de multis venialibus, nihil aliud exprimendo, probabilius non videtur licere extra casum necessitatis ; turn quia est contra praxim Ecclesice, turn quia hoc Sacramentum est institutum per modum accusdtionis et judicii, quod per se loquendo fieri debet circa materiam saltern in specie certain et determinatam. Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. c. IT. Cf. Suarez, Disp. 23, Sect. I. n. 10; Reuter, Neoconfessarius, P. II. C. III. Art. 4, n. 117. 66 De Sacr. Poenit. c. 5, n. 14. 67 Cf. Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. c. II. 68 Suarez, Disp. 23, Sect. I. n. 10. 69 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 266. 48 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT 1. If, in order to secure unquestionably definite matter from the past life of the penitent, some sin or other is confessed in addition to those committed since the last confession, it ought to be done by mentioning the virtue or the commandment which was violated. 2. Some really grave sin ought- to be mentioned. 3. It should not be mentioned out of mere routine, but with real sorrow of heart. 4. Since of late a number of writers defend the mere vague accusation on this free matter as valid and permissible 70 even outside cases of necessity, the confessor when unable to get more definite matter may acquiesce and grant absolution. 5. If one desires to derive real spiritual profit from the con fession of venial sins, too great minuteness as well as too great vagueness must be avoided; some particular venial sin which causes more uneasiness than the rest might be made a subject of more especial sorrow and more careful accusation, otherwise in many cases the sorrow as well as the accusation and purpose of amendment are likely to be too vague, if not completely absent. It has been pointed out previously that gross igno rance on the part of the penitent is a reason for taking a very general accusation as valid for absolution. In practice the confessor should attend to the following rules : — In the case of a penitent who accuses himself of no sin in particular, let the priest inquire whether this be due to the fact that the penitent has really not committed any mortal sin, or to invincible ignorance, or to a rooted habit of sin which has produced in the penitent a darkening of the intellect and a reck lessness with regard to his salvation. If the penitent accuses himself of no sin in particular because he is really quite uncon scious of grave trespass, the confessor might suggest to him a 70 Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Compend. Theol. Moral. IT. n. 421. REMOTE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 49 few lesser sins such as are usually committed by people in the same station of life, and ask if, since the last confession or in his past life, he has ever given way to such sins — if, for instance, he has offended his neighbor, or been violent, angry, disobedient, careless in prayer, etc. If the penitent answers in the affirma tive to one or other of these questions, the confessor should excite him to repentance and purpose of amendment, so far as he sees it necessary, and then absolve him. If, however, the penitent answers all questions with a No, and cannot be induced to acknowledge any sin of his past life, further questioning should be avoided, and the penitent urged to make an act of sorrow for all the sins of his whole life, especially those com mitted against his neighbor, or against obedience, etc. If the penitent accede to this, as often happens, in spite of his former declaration that he is not conscious of any sin even in his past life, the priest should arouse him to sorrow and a firm resolution, and absolve him conditionally if the penitent has not received absolution for a long time. With such penitents there will be reason to suspect that their disposition comes from want of knowledge of the most necessary truths of salvation. If the priest discover this to be the case — as he may by a few judicious questions — he may not absolve him till after instruction in these necessary truths. Ordinarily it will be well to instruct him at once before leaving the confes sional, for fear that he should neglect approaching the Sacra ments — a consequence much to be apprehended — • or take no pains to get instructed. If, however, the priest finds out that the cause of the ignorance is a rooted habit of sin, or the insensibility following on certain sins which have so fatal an effect in this matter — as, for instance, impurity or drunkenness — he must exercise great patience, putting before the penitent earnestly the awful consequences of his sinful life, instruct him, and in every possible way prepare him with true apostolic zeal to receive worthily the sacrament, either immediately or later, if the 50 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT absolution be deferred, and to fulfill his resolutions of making an earnest amendment.71 7. The Form of the Sacrament. The form of the Sacrament, "in which its power principally lies," 72 consists of the words which the priest utters over the penitent : Ego te absolve a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Amen. To these words the custom of the Church has added others which have become fixed in the ritual and are prescribed, though "they do not belong to the essence of the form and are not necessary for the conferring of the Sac rament." 73 There is no doubt that the words Ego te absolvo, or te absolvo simply (since the pronoun Ego is contained in the verb absolvo), belong to the essence of the form. These words are de essentia forma, because, as St. Thomas says,74 they signify the virtus clavium et totum Sacramenti effectum. According to most theologians the words a peccatis tuis do not belong to the essence and the validity of the Sacrament; for this view we may quote St. Thomas and the authority of the Roman catechism, which says: "The form is: Ego te ab solvo." The words a peccatis tuis are sufficiently indicated by the accusation of the penitent and the act of the priest who gives absolution. Other theologians, however, maintain that these words are essential, arguing that since Christ in institut ing the Sacrament used the words, "Whose sins you shall for give," the remission of sins ought to be expressly mentioned. Though the first view is the more probable, the words ought not to be omitted in practice, since in the conferring of the Sacra ments the safer opinion should be followed.75 71 On this matter see the eminently practical hints of Reuter in his Neoconfessarius, 1. c. n. 117. Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. nn. 266, 267. 72 Trident. Sess. XIV. cp. 3. 78 Trident. 1. c. 74 TIT. Q. 84, a. 3. 75 S. Alph, Lib. VI. n. 430, Dub. 2 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 32. THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT 51 If the words absolvo a peccatis tuis were used, omitting the word te, the form would still be probably valid, since te is suffi ciently implied in the word tuis; in practice, however, this view ought not to be taken, but the safer opinion followed.76 The absolution would certainly be invalid if the priest said only absolvo, because the object of the absolution is not indicated and the sense is indefinite.77 The words In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen, are certainly not of the essence of the form, since Christ in insti tuting the Sacrament made no reference to the Blessed Trinity ; they are, however, most appropriately added to express that the priest absolves from sin by the authority and power of God.78 In cases of necessity absolution may be given by the same priest to many persons at the same time, while he says, Ego vos absolvo a peccatis vestris; thus, for instance, soldiers may be absolved at the beginning of a battle. As many Sacraments are conferred as there are persons absolved, if they give any token of sorrow and in some way confess their sinfulness.79 The Rituale Romanum prescribes how a priest should give absolution, and, as it is the official book of the Church, he is bound to follow its directions. Any unauthorized change would be a sin because it is a breach of the commands of the Church; indeed the confessor would sin grievously if he wished to introduce any change into the form of absolution. "When the priest is about to give absolution," is the direction of the Ritual, "after imposing a penance on the penitent and the latter having accepted it, let him say: Misereatur tui omnipo- 76 S. Thorn. III. Q. 84, n. 1 ad 3. Cf. Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract. VI. 77 The S. C. de Propag. Fid., being asked if a baptism is valid in which te is omitted from the form, replied (July 5, 1841) : Non valere baptisma, ideoque iterandum. The same holds for the Sacrament of Penance. 78 S. Thorn. III. Q. 84, n. 1 ad 3. Cf. Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract. VI, Disp. IT. Q. IV. c. 1. 79 Lugo, 1. c. Dist. 13, Sect. 7 ; Lacroix, 1. c. Lib. VI. P. 2, n. 645, etc. 52 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT tens Deus et dimissis peccatis tuis per ducat te ad vitam ceternam. Amen. Then he raises his right hand over the penitent and says: Indulgentiam, dbsolutionem et remissionem peccatorum tuorum tribuat tibi omnipotens et misericors Dominus. Amen. "Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat, et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis (suspen- sionis) et inter dicti in quantum possum et tu indiges. Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris ^ et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. "If the penitent is not a cleric, the word suspensionis is omitted." Then follows the prayer: " Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, merita beatce Marice Virginis et omnium Sanctorum, quidquid boni feceris et mali sustinueris, sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum, augmentum gratia? et premium vitas ceterncB. Amen." If there are many penitents to be heard and in urgent con fessions, the Misereatur and Indulgentiam may be omitted and simply the Dominus noster, etc., said. The prayer Passio Do mini, etc., may also be left out.80 It is recommended, how ever, not to omit this last prayer, because by virtue of it (so teaches St. Thomas) the good works of the penitent acquire the character of sacramental satisfaction, and a share in the merits of Christ as well as those of our blessed Lady and of the saints.81 "In cases of pressing necessity, in danger of death, the priest 80 Cf. Deer. S. R. C. Feb. 27, 1847. 81 Cf. Stotz, Tribunal Poemtentise, L. IT. Q. III. art. 1, § 1 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 268 : etiam in frequenti.oribus confessionibus expedit non omittere. Though Tappehorn in his Anleitung zur Verwaltung des heiligen Buss- Sacramentes, third edition, p. 67, suggests that when, in accordance with the permission of the Roman Ritual, the prayer is omitted, it may be said after the last confession over all those who have confessed, as at the first absolution (in confessionibus frequentioribus) the prayers Misereatur and Indulgentiam (the plural vextri, vestris, etc., being used) may be said over all who are present, we must observe that the Roman Ritual mentions nothing about this practice. Holzmann recommends that the Passio Domini nostri, etc., should be said as the penitent leaves the box. THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT 53 may simply say : Ego te absolve db omnibus censuris et peccatis in nomine Patris *%* et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen." Such is the form of absolution according to the prescription of the Roman Ritual. The confessor is at liberty to make use of the above abbreviations under the circumstances mentioned. It would be very wrong to attempt to put in all the prayers, if there were danger of a man dying without receiving absolution; in this case the priest must use the shorter form given by the Ritual.82 The priest will be more eager to carry out the directions of the Church if he reflects on the meaning of the prayers which pre cede and follow the absolution ; the former constitute an admi rable preparation for that great act of mercy, the latter a most appropriate crowning of the same; all secure a special help for the penitent. Even the blessing which, according to some rituals, the priest is enjoined to give with the words : Dominus sit in corde tuo et in labiis tuis ut digne et competenter (or rite) con- fitearis peccata tua. In nomine Patris *k et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen, is important. The accusation of so many sins is a heavy burden to the penitent; false shame and the devil will unite to deter him from a sincere accusation; and so the priest prays that the Lord with His grace may so act on the heart of the penitent that with sincerity and contrition he accuses himself of what burdens his conscience. In the Misereatur the priest prays that God may grant in His mercy remission of the sins which the penitent confesses, and give him eternal life (anticipando by sanctifying grace, and perfectly in the next world). The Indulgentiam contains the same petition for "grace, absolution, and remission," of sins confessed and of all others; 82 It is not de necessitate to raise the hand at the Indulgentiam, to make the sign of the cross at the in nomine Patris, etc., or to uncover the head in giving the absolution; and distinguished authors maintain that it is not sinful to omit these ceremonies ; it is advisable, however, in this matter to conform to custom. Scavini, Theol. Moral. Universa, Tom. IV. n. 76. 54 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT it is not meant as a mere repetition, as a sort of compliance with Our Lord's counsel of insisting on the first petition; but in the repetition of the synonyms the priest is no doubt intended to plead for God's mercy and power that the penitent may have complete forgiveness of sin. This perfect forgiveness includes also the remission of the temporal penalties, since these, as the reliquice peccatorum, are so intimately connected with the sin itself that in early Christian times they were briefly included under the category of peccata, and the Church, in the so-called general absolution given on the occasion of a plenary indulgence of temporal punishment, still uses the formula indulgentiam plenariam et remissionem omnium peccatorum tibi concedo. Then the priest goes on to reconcile the penitent to the Church by the removal of all censures which close the door to the Sac raments and other means of grace. This absolution from cen sure should always precede that of the sins as a measure of precaution even when no sins involving censure have been con fessed. The Church insists on this, and many moralists teach that the confessor by omitting this absolutio a censuris would commit a venial sin by his disobedience to the command of the Church. Even in cases of the most pressing urgency the priest should use the form: Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris et pec- catis in nomine Patris, etc.83 St. Alphonsus does not regard this omission as a sin if the priest uses the formula of absolution with the intention of absolving from censure as well as sin, and he argues from the words of the Council of Trent, which says only that this clause is added laudabiliter.84 If, however, a penitent has incurred a censure and the priest first absolves from the sin and afterwards from the censure, such inversion of the order would be matter of grievous sin when the censure is excommunication debarring from the reception of the Sacra ments; not, however, in the case of suspension or interdict. *3 Hi. Rom. De Sacram. Pcenit. 84 Sess. XIV. cp. 3. Cf. S. Alph. n. 430, Dub. 4. THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT 55 This inversion would also be a grievous sin even if the priest intended to absolve from both sins and censures, although in this case the words absolvo te a peccatis tuis can be understood pf the absolution from censures on account of the intimate con nection between the two.85 Such an absolution, therefore, would be valid though given in defiance of the Church's pre scription, for the censure does not affect the validity but only the lawfulness of the absolution.86 The penitent must be present and the absolution pronounced over him by the confessor if it is to be valid. This is abun dantly clear from the divine institution of the Sacrament, from the practice of the Church, and from a decree of the Head of the Church. Hence the absolution cannot be given in writing "*or by signs. According to the teaching of the Councils of Florence and Trent the form of this Sacrament, as of all the others (except that of matrimony, where a mere sign of consent is sufficient), is in the words which the priest must pronounce and articulate over the penitent. The Sacraments owe their institution to Christ ; for, though matrimony existed as a divine institution before His coming, it was sanctified by Him and raised to the dignity of a means of grace in His Church. The essential rites of the Sacraments were defined by Christ, and we learn them from Scripture or tradition. We know from a uniform tradition that the form of all the Sacraments except matrimony 85 Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. cp. IV. art. 1 ; Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract. VI. Disp. TI. Q. IV. cp. I ; Stotz, 1. c. L. II. Q. III. art. 1, § 1, 11. 215 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sect. I. cp. III. § 3, n. 270. 86 The word Deinde which connects the absolution from censures with that from sins appears, from the latest edition of the Roman Ritual as revised and approved by the S. R. C., to belong to the form (cf. Edit. I. post typicam Ratisbon, 1888, specialiter a S. R. C. recognita) ; formerly the word was printed in red and regarded as a rubric (cf. Edit. Romse ex typogr. Prop. 1876). As to the forma deprecatoria which, according to Frank (Bussdisciplin), was in use till the twelfth century, see Frank, B. 5, K. 4 ; Morinus, De Poenitent. ; Binterim, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Bd. 5, Teil 1, K. 6, § 3 ; S. Thorn. III. Q. 84, a. 3 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 269, nota 2. 56 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT consists essentially in words articulated by the lips; as for the Sacrament of Penance, the evidence is clear as well from the actual use prescribed in all penitentials and from the teaching of the Fathers, as from the decree of Eugenius IV to the Arme nians. It is not, however, necessary that the words of absolution should be heard by the penitent or others; in fact it is recom mended to say them in a low voice, so that, in case absolution is for some reason withheld from a penitent, others may not know of it. The fact that the absolution should be pronounced in words requires as its complement that the penitent should be present, for the words Ego te absolvo are not such as we would address to a person when absent, but thus we speak to one who is nigh. The form must certainly be applied to the matter actually present; moreover, according to the Council of Trent the sinner should present himself before the tribunal as the accused. This is quite clear, too, from the constant tradition of the Church, in which all penitentials contain a form which is pronounced over one who is present, and either explicitly require the imme diate presence of the penitent before the confessor or evidently suppose it; nor do we find in the whole of antiquity any clear instance of a sacramental absolution pronounced over an absent person. A confession, therefore, made to a priest by writing or by messenger is invalid if the absolution is given to the penitent in his absence. Moreover, the absolution is illicit and invalid if given to an absent penitent even though the confession has been made by him in person to the priest. Further, too, the absolution is illicit and invalid which is given to a present peni tent who has not confessed in person to the priest — if, for instance, the confession has been by letter; exception is made for the case where the penitent presents himself to the priest and for some good reason accuses himself only in general of sins THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT 57 about which he has informed the confessor by letter, if the latter at the time of the confession retains a knowledge of the sins in particular.87 The prcesentia moralis of the penitent is sufficient for absolu tion. This condition is satisfied if the priest and the penitent are sufficiently near to hear one another when they speak in an ordinary tone of voice, though cases may occur where the voice must be exerted a little more than is usual.88 In general greater proximity is required for valid absolution than is demanded for hearing a preacher or for satisfying the obligation of hearing Mass.89 St. Alphonsus declares with respect to this subject that Tam- 87 With regard to this matter Clement VIII in Const, data d. 20 Jun. 1602 condemned the following proposition: It is permitted to confess one's sins to an absent confessor by means of a letter or a messenger, and to receive absolution from the same confessor though still absent. Moreover, he forbade under pain of excommunication any one to teach this doctrine or to make use of it as a probable opinion. The condemnation of this proposition by the Pope involves evidently an absolute command, and the conclusion is fairly drawn that the confession made to an absentee, as well as the absolution given to an absentee, are both illicit and invalid ; otherwise one might in a case of extreme necessity allow the practice. The Clemen tine decree is to be taken not only collectively, that is, as legislating for the case where both confession and absolution are conveyed by absentees, but also disjunctively, that is, as legislating for the case where confession has been made to an absentee, the absolution being given when the penitent presents himself, and vice verm. This was decreed by Paul V, July 14, 1605. More information may be found in Palmieri, Tract, de Pcenit. pp. 141-143 (Rom. 1879). Cf. Renter, Neoconfessar. P. 1. n. 31; Miiller, 1. c. L. III. T. II. § 132; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I. n. 32 s. Absolu tion from censure, apart from the absolution from sin, may be conveyed by writing and the presence of the penitent is not required ; similarly censures may be inflicted on one who is absent. Without grave necessity, however, the absolution from censures ought not to be given in the absence of the penitent. S, Alph. L. VII. n. 117. 88 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 429. 89 Though all theologians agree in requiring the moral presence of the penitent for valid absolution, they vary in assigning the limits of that pres-- ence. Many theologians suppose that a penitent stationed at twenty paces from the priest may be regarded as morally present; this distance is thought by St. Alphonsus to be too great. 58 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT burini is justified in rejecting the view of Leander, who holds that the moral presence is secured if the priest sees the penitent or is sensibly aware of his presence.90 A man may be seen at a distance at which it would be impossible to hold speech with him in the usual manner or even by raising the voice. If in case of necessity absolution must be given at a distance, it should be given sub conditione. Hence to secure the validity of the absolution it is required (1) that the confessor and the penitent should not be in rooms which are in no way connected; and if (2) they are in the same room, they should not be too far apart, certainly not more than twenty paces; if the distance is notably less, there need be no misgiving about the validity of the absolution; finally (3) the required proximity is secured if the priest knows that the penitent is present. (a) If the penitent has already left the confessional but is still close by the confessor, he may and ought to be absolved, even, according to Lugo, Tamburini, and others, if he be so merged in the crowd that he cannot be seen ; the confessor must, however, be certain that he is not or cannot be far off; for the penitent is still morally present and has the desire of receiving absolution. The penitent ought, however, to be recalled if this can be done without causing disturbance or remark. (6) If, through fear of infection or for other reasons, the priest cannot enter a sick-room, he may validly absolve the penitent from the window or the door.91 (c) If at a distance a priest sees some one falling from a height or into the water, or if he knows that some one is buried 90 S. Alph. 1. c. VI. n. 429. 11 The priest is, however, strongly advised not to be too nervous in exer cising his office for a penitent struck down by an infectious disease ; confi dence in God joined to a little prudent foresight and courage will be more useful to him than a cowardly nervousness. CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION 59 under the ruins of a building, etc., he should give absolution conditionally.92 Absolution must, under ordinary circumstances, be given absolutely; for weighty reasons it may and ought to be given conditionally (conditione) . 8. Conditional Absolution. It is the unanimous teaching of all theologians that in certain cases, for weighty reasons, the Sacraments may be administered 92 Cf. Renter, Neoconfess. 1. c. n. 31 ; Scavini, Theologia Moralis uni- versa, Tom IV. n. 77; Miiller, 1. c. § 132; Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VI. Tom. V. cp. IV. n. 215, Q. 6. In accordance with this teaching we must solve the question raised whether absolution given by telephone is valid. (Aloys. Sabetti, S.J., in Collegio SS. Cordis ad Woodstock, Th. Mor. Prof., Compend. Theol. Moral. Gury ... ad breviorem form am redactum, etc. Benziger, 1884; Alphous. Eschbach e Cong. S. Spiritus et I mm. Cord. M. Rectoris Sern. Gall. Romse, La Confession par telephone ; Melata, Manuale Theol. Moralis, De Poenit. cp. II. art. I.) It is certain that the use of the telephone for giving absolution is extra casum necessitatis a grave sin because it intro duces into the administration of the Sacraments a practice which is novel and liable to misuse. The case is limited to the question whether in urgent need the use of such a method can be tolerated — if, for instance, a member of a secret society, seized with a dangerous illness and anxious to be reconciled with the Church, but debarred by his associates from the sight of a priest, could make use of the telephone placed in his room to call up a friendly priest and make his confession to him and receive absolution through the telephone. Eschbach, in his work mentioned above, teaches that such an absolution is quite invalid. Sabetti acknowledges that the solution of the question involves many difficulties, and that it ought to be submitted to the decision of the Holy See; he appears, however, to incline to an affirmative answer. He says : Though it is true that moral presence and a connection between matter and form are necessary in every Sacrament, yet this exigency varies. Since Penance has been instituted on the lines of an earthly tribunal, in which judge and accused must be so far present to one another as to be able to speak together, the absolution in the given case cannot be said for certain to be invalid, since one might always argue that the priest and the penitent could speak together. Against this, it may be objected that the illustration of an earthly tribunal is not quite applicable, since here the presence of the accused is not necessary, for he may be con demned in contumaciam. To the question whether in caau extremes necessita tis dart possit absolutio per telephonium ? the Poenitentiaria replied, July L 1884: Nihil esse respondendum . — Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale (Romse, 1887), p. 119. 60 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT conditionally, and, what is more, must be so administered. With regard to Baptism and Extreme Unction this is pre scribed by the Roman Ritual, with regard to Confirmation by Benedict XIV, with regard to the Holy Eucharist, where a doubt exists as to the validity of the consecration, by the Rubrics of the Mass, and with regard to Orders by the S. Congregatio Concilii.93 The question now under consideration is whether the Sacra ment of Penance given conditionally is valid. Many theologians were of opinion that a conditional absolution was opposed to the judicial character of this Sacrament. They argued that the conditional form was not judicial, and in partic ular would not admit a condition with regard to law (conditio •juris), on which the confessor was bound to pronounce judg ment (e.g. if thou art prepared, disposed, etc.), whereas they permitted a condition with regard to the fact (conditio facti) (e.g. if thou art alive). This distinction is, however, irrelevant; for even though the question of the penitent's disposition be left undecided, still the priest judges (1) of the sins which have been confessed, and (2) gives his sentence on the apparent worthiness and preparation of the penitent and the penance to be imposed ; and (3) judges on the advisability of conferring conditional ab solution or not, according to the effect it will have on the peni tent. In any case, the argument from the difference which a conditional sentence would create between a human court and the sacramental tribunal proves nothing, since the two courts differ in many points.94 It is to be particularly noted that the sentence of an earthly court is always carried out ; while the effect of the sentence which the priest pronounces in the divine tribunal always depends on conditions known only to God, so that the priest's sentence is always conditional even when it is pronounced in an absolute form. A conditional sentence is in 98 Scavini, Theologia Moralis Universa, Tom. III. n. 479 (Ed. Par. 1867). ** Cf . Gury, II. 1. c. n. 432, 2 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I. n. 27. CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION 61 no way inconsistent with the nature of a judicial judgment either in general or in the Sacrament of Penance. Lehmkuhl enlarges on this point:95 "It is not repugnant in a civil tribunal for a judge to give sentence with a condition like the following, for instance : ' If payment be not made by a cer tain date/ or to grant a hearing to a plaintiff 'provided that such or such document be found among his papers/ which docu ment, of course, he will order to be searched for by trustworthy men. Indeed, every sentence of a human tribunal, whether in civil or in criminal causes, is seldom pronounced without the implicit condition ' if the evidence of the witnesses be true ' ; for unless it rested upon this supposition and condition, the sen tence would be unjust and consequently null, more especially if pronounced by any but the supreme authority." Thus the sacramental sentence always presupposes that the penitent is telling the truth and has real sorrow; under such circumstances the confessor may be mistaking even when he thinks he is certain, all the more so as the sacramental sentence is pronounced always ministerially, and, in order to be efficacious, must be in accordance with the sentence of God. This, how ever, is no impediment to the absolution being for the most part pronounced absolutely both as to form and intention. This the confessor must observe as long as he has no solid ground for thinking that his judgment is not in accordance with God's; for a condition which rests only on a possibility or on a groundless suspicion is practically not worth considering and ought not to be acted upon; in reality it is quite sufficiently implied in the nature of the case. If, however, for some good reason it is to be feared that the judgment of the confessor is different from that of God, while the pressing necessity of the case, or the good of the penitent requires that absolution be given even though doubtful, rever- 95 Lehmkuhl, P. IT. L. I. Tr. V. Sect. I. n. 272. 62 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT ence for the Sacrament demands that the condition be added explicitly in word, or at least in the mind, so that it amounts to a protest on the part of the priest that where the condition is in default he withdraws his intention of pronouncing the sacred words of absolution in the person of Christ. The opponents of conditional absolution urge in favor of their view the proposition that in doubt about the validity of the Sac raments the safer opinion must be followed. With regard to the validity of conditional absolution there is no doubt, since the views of its opponents have no probability either intrinsic or extrinsic. Moreover, it is not true that the safer opinion with regard to the validity of the Sacraments is always to be followed ; for, since the Sacraments were instituted for man's benefit, cases occur in which the Sacraments must be exposed to the danger of nullity, in order to help one who is in extreme spiritual neces sity. An instance in point would be the case of a dying man whose dispositions are doubtful. To let him die without abso lution would surely expose him to the certain danger of dam nation. Supposing he were in good dispositions, whatever misgivings I might have on the subject, should I not be re sponsible for his damnation ? I might have opened the gates of heaven to him and I have not done it ! Am I then to absolve him without any condition ? But supposing he is not disposed ; even if the Sacrament were not nullified, I should be guilty of having exposed it to the danger of invalidity. From such a di lemma the only escape is the use of conditional absolution ; by it I can help the dying man if he is in good dispositions, and I insure the Sacrament against nullity when I have the intention of not conferring it unless the man be disposed.98 Hence theologians teach that absolution given sub conditions is valid if the condition be fulfilled; the condition, however, must be de prcesenti or de prccterito; absolution given under a 86 Cf. Gury, II. n. 434. CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION 63 conditio de futuro would be invalid, for in a conditio de futuro the minister of the Sacrament has no intention of conferring the Sacrament hie et nunc; his intention would rather be to confer the Sacrament when the condition will have been fulfilled; by that time, however, the matter is no longer present which for the validity of the Sacrament must be joined to the form. On the other hand, the Sacrament may be validly given under a condition de prcesenti or de prceterito, because the intention is absolute if the condition is fulfilled; if not fulfilled, the inten tion of administering the Sacrament is wanting, so that the Sacrament is not exposed to irreverence. In this case the con ditional intention passes into an unconditional one, i.e. becomes absolute. But the conditional intention is efficacious for valid ity only if the condition is completed or satisfied at the moment when the matter and form of the Sacrament are brought to gether. The absolution would also be valid if it were given with the condition: "if you are alive, if you are baptized, if you are present, if you really intend to make restitution"; while an ab solution would be invalid if given under conditions such as, "if you are predestined, if it be in the mind of God that you will make restitution this year," since such knowledge is withheld from men. Finally, an absolution given with the condition, "if you are going to improve," would also be invalid.97 It is also allowed to give absolution sub conditione when there is just reason for so doing; and in case of necessity the priest is bound under mortal sin to give conditional absolution.98 The view of some theologians is to be condemned who hold that one may impart conditional absolution for any insignificant reason, or without urgent need, or in any doubt of the requisite dispositions even in a penitent burdened with mortal sin. This is a doctrine which bears too openly the stamp of laxity, and it 97 Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. Lib. VI. n. 25; Stotz, 1. c. L. II. Q. III. art. I. § 4 88 Cf . Declar. S. Inquis. 17 Juni 1715, 17 Dec. 1868, 20 Jul. 1859 64 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT is pernicious to souls. What a number of sacrileges would fol low from such a practice ! The confessor would be no longer a faithful and prudent minister of the Sacrament, he would be casting pearls before swine, and by his too easy compliance in giving absolution he would imperil the souls of his peni tents." On the other hand, we cannot admit the teaching of those theologians 10° who hold that absolution sub conditione is per mitted only in extreme necessity or in great danger. A sufficient reason for imparting absolution under condition would be in the case where unconditional absolution would ex pose the Sacrament to danger of nullity on account of a reason able doubt of the existence of some one or other of the requisites for the validity of the Sacrament, and where at the same time by putting off the absolution the penitent would be exposed to danger of real spiritual harm. From what has been said we gather that in the following cases absolution may be given sub conditione : - 1. If the priest doubt whether he has absolved a penitent who has confessed a mortal sin. 2. In doubt whether the penitent in question is morally present. 3. In doubt whether the penitent is alive or already dead. 4. If the priest doubt (dubio facti) whether he has jurisdic tion, and the confession must be made; in such a case the con fessor must tell the penitent that he has given absolution only sub conditione, so that if proof be forthcoming later on that juris diction was wanting, the penitent will know that he has not been absolved and must accuse himself again of the mortal sins men tioned in that confession. If the doubt turn on the question of law (dubium juris), i.e. on a point where theologians do not 99 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 432, etc. 00 Colletus, " acerrimus probaWismi iftipugnator.' CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION 65 agree whether absolution can be given in such a case, the absolu tion may be pronounced without any condition.101 5. In doubt whether the matter be sufficient : this may hap pen (a) when an adult is baptized sub conditione and is to be absolved at the same time; and (b) when a penitent declares only some imperfections, and there is doubt whether they are really venial sins, and when the same penitent can offer no cer tain sins of his past life. To such a penitent absolution may, according to a probable view, be given at intervals, so that he may not be deprived for long of the benefits of the Sacrament of Penance ; absolution in such cases ought not to be given more than once a month. For the same reason absolution can be given sub conditione when the penitent, unable to present cer tain matter from his past life, has only sins of less moment to confess and there is doubt as to the existence of sorrow for such sins.102 Moreover, if the penitent offer no certain matter, the confessor is not bound to inquire for it in order to give abso lution, and after making vain inquiry he is not obliged to give absolution sub conditione, since the penitent in such case has no sure claim to it. If, however, any doubt exists as to the presence of necessary matter, or whether a sin confessed along with the imperfections be mortal or not, for which, however, the penitent is certainly contrite, then absolution under condition must be given. 6. In doubt whether the necessary dispositions with regard to mortal sin are present conditional absolution may sometimes, though not always, be given ; it must be given when urgent rea sons counsel such a step. For instance : - (a) To those who are in danger of death, from whatever cause. (b) When the penitent honestly thinks he is well disposed, and when the confessor fears that if absolution be refused or put 101 Aertnys, 1. c. art. IT. n. 217; Concilia, according to the testimony of St. Alphonsus, in severcis sententias generatim deflectens. 102 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 273. 66 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT off, the penitent may fall into worse ways or be frightened away from the Sacraments, or that he will certainly receive some other Sacrament, as, for instance, Marriage or Confirmation, in an unworthy state. Finally, conditional absolution may be given to children and others of whom it is doubtful whether they possess sufficient use of reason or the necessary knowledge of the truths of faith. These may receive conditional absolution not only when in dan ger of death, but also when they have to fulfill the law of the Church, and especially if they have confessed a sin which is doubtfully or probably mortal; they must be so absolved even if they are relapsing sinners, for while in doubtfully disposed penitents who have the full use of reason absolution must be de layed, since hopes may be entertained that they will return bet ter disposed later, in the case of children or feeble minded no such hope can be well entertained. Indeed, according to a probable view such penitents may receive conditional absolution at inter vals of two or three months, when they confess only venial sins, that they may not go for any considerable time without the grace of the Sacrament. The confessor is, however, obliged to instruct children and feeble-minded persons and to dispose them for absolution.103 We answer some objections urged against the doctrine that in the cases mentioned absolution may be given condi tionally. 1. This practice is full of danger and is the cause of many sins. The practice is full of danger, it is true, if absolution is given indiscriminately without necessity or some special reason; if, however, the rules given above are observed, it is no longer dangerous or harmful. 2. It is further objected that a penitent conditionally absolved 103 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 432 ; Lacroix, L. VT. p. 2, n. 1797; Mazzotta, Theol. Moralis, Tract. IV. Disp. IT. Q. TV. cp. II. ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. 1. c. cp. I. n. 27; Aertnys, 1. c. art. II. n. 217 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 273 ; Gnry, 1. c. IT. n. 435. CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION 6? will approach the altar and make a sacrilegious communion, a risk not to be incurred lightly. The confession of such a penitent is not sacrilegious, hence the communion is not; for, by supposition, the penitent is in good faith. At the worst the communion would be without fruit or profit; nor can we say that the communion is quite useless, for its reception is an occasion for eliciting different acts of virtue. Indeed, according to the common teaching on this subject, the communicant who receives in mortal sin and with imperfect contrition, yet in good faith, is placed thereby in a state of grace. To make an act of imperfect contrition should not be a great difficulty, since holy communion usually arouses pious emotions of love and sorrow in those who approach in good faith. 3. It is likewise objected that a conditionally absolved peni tent will never confess his sins again, and if he is not rightly disposed will die in his sins. It may be replied that doubtfully absolved sins are remitted (a) by the reception of holy communion, as we have already shown ; (6) indirectly in the following confession along with the other sins which he confesses, even if he were never again to submit them to the keys. If it be urged here that the penitent might never come to confession again, we should reply that such a case is extremely rare and to be treated as quite improb able. On the contrary, the penitent would be exposed to much graver risk of his salvation if, in a situation of such necessity as we postulate for the giving of conditional absolution, he were to be dismissed without it. 4. Another objection is drawn from the first of the proposi tions condemned by Innocent XI, whence it appears that no one may presume to follow a probable opinion in dispensing the Sacraments. The conclusion drawn is that no one may give an absolution which is doubtfully valid. This practice is absolutely forbidden where the validity of the 68 PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT Sacrament and the welfare of the individual are endangered by such administration of the Sacrament; if, however, necessity or solid reasons demand such practice, it is allowed.104 Moreover, the proposition condemned by Innocent is concerned only with the essential portions of the Sacrament, the validity of matter and form in so far as these depend on the minister of the Sacra ment. In our case the matter is presented by the penitent and is outside the control of the minister. Otherwise, indeed, peni tents might often enough be dismissed without absolution, for frequently no certainty can be had as to their dispositions, but at most a greater or lesser probability. 5. Finally some would limit the use of conditional absolution to cases of the greatest rarity and of most pressing necessity - when, for instance, a dying man is quite unconscious or already in his agony ; for in any other case it is entirely his own fault if he be doubtfully disposed. This is the view of the anonymous author of the Letters against the distinguished work of Cardinal Gousset : Justification de la doctrine de Saint Liguori.™5 This objection is based on several false premises : — 1. It is untrue that one who is doubtfully disposed is certainly indisposed ; it is at least per se untrue, for it is a contradiction in terms. 2. It is untrue that the penitent is always responsible for not 104 Compare S. Alph. De Sacram. in gen ere, n. 28, 29, 57, and De Consci- entia, n. 49; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. 1. c. cp. I. n. 27: "hsec est sen- tentia certa, licere in necessitate administrare sacramenta sub conditioned' 105 He says : " Necessity is but very seldom a ground for giving absolution to one who is doubtfully disposed ; for a dying man, with only an instant to spare, and in the possession of his faculties, has only himself to blame if he cannot produce an act of perfect contrition ; it is an article of faith that God never refuses the means of salvation if they are asked with confidence, and for such a soul perfect contrition is a most necessary condition for sal vation. If, therefore, he has only doubtful contrition, it is his own fault, and in such case he is not merely doubtfully, but certainly, unworthy, and cannot in consequence be absolved. There remain, then, only the cases in which the dying man cannot express his sentiments even by signs, and then the principle holds : sacramenta propter homines." CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION 69 seeming certainly disposed; for he can be quite prepared with out the confessor knowing about it; again, as long as he is not certainly unprepared, he may be actually in the proper disposi tions. 3. Many considerations respecting the penitent's salvation may, as we have seen, urge the confessor to decide on giving rather than refusing absolution. At times the priest would be guilty of the gravest imprudence by putting off the absolution till extreme need should arise, when the penitent might be unable to avail himself of the Sacrament. "Do you wish to put off the reconciliation of the dying man to his God till the moment when he can no longer express his wishes? Will you, in order to make the absolution certain, wait till the penitent is at the last gasp, so that it is doubtful if he is capable of receiving the Sac rament? ... I repeat, the Sacraments are made for men, not men for the Sacraments. By pursuing such a course you would act in opposition to Him who out of His mercy gave us the Sac rament; you would depart from the spirit of the Church which, like a tender mother, administers the Sacraments, when you maintain that we can only apply the principle of sacramenta propter homines in cases where the dying sinner cannot even by signs express what is going on in the recesses of his soul."106 106 Gousset, Lettres a M. le Cure . . . Lettre 8. Cf . Gury, 1. c. II. Tract, de Sacram. Poenit. P. I. n. 436-439 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. 1. c. cp. I. nn. 27 et 26, where he signalizes these objections as inanes objectiones nonnul- lorum, etiam recentiorum in Gcdlia, qui antiqua prcejudicia janseniana incaute ebiberunt. PART II THE RECIPIENT OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, OR THE ACTS OF THE PENITENT 9. Who can Receive the Sacrament of Penance. EVERY man who has fallen into formal sin after Baptism is capable of receiving the Sacrament of Penance. Whoever, therefore, has not yet been baptized, or, having been baptized, has committed no sin since Baptism, is incapable of sacramental absolution. All children who have not attained to the use of reason are unable to receive this Sacrament; to these we may add such adults as cannot make that use of their reason which is necessary for disposing them to receive this Sacrament. In order that a baptized person may make a valid and fruit ful use of this Sacrament, he must elicit those acts which we have mentioned before ; he must be genuinely sorry for his sins, be ready to do penance, and submit his sins to the power of the keys vested in the Church. These acts form not only the essen tial and necessary dispositions for receiving the Sacrament, but — and this is a peculiar feature of Itn Sacrament of Penance — they are also the materia proxima. The following sections will be devoted to the consideration of these acts in their double aspect. CHAPTER I CONTRITION 10. Extent and Efficacy of Contrition. THE most prominent position among the acts of the penitent belongs to contrition. According to the teaching of the Council of Trent contrition is a hearty sorrow and detestation for past sin together with a firm resolution to sin no more.1 We must investigate more closely the essence of this contrition. Contrition is a hearty sorrow; this sorrow is interior; hence the prophet speaks of a rending of the heart (scindite corda vestra! — Joel ii. 13), and so contrition is called contritio cordis, a grind ing of the heart. A merely external show of sorrow7, the mere recital of an act of contrition, is therefore not a true sorrow. Moreover, since sorrow is a moral act and all moral acts proceed from the will, sorrow must have its roots in the will. Many very different things may cause us great grief; for in stance, the death of a dear relation, the loss of earthly goods, the failure of our plans and undertakings, the suffering of wrongs and affronts, experience of ingratitude and unkindness, a thought less word which one has uttered, a mere breach of etiquette that one has committed. Contrition, however, is grief of the soul for past sin. The sins of others may cause us real and deep feelings of pain. What fervent Christian is unconcerned at the many sins which are daily committed and the many affronts offered to God ? We are pained by them, but we cannot be contrite for them. We can 1 Sess. XIV. cp. 4. 71 72 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE have contrition only for the sins which we have ourselves commit ted — de peccato commisso, as the Council of Trent expresses it. This being the case, sorrow as understood in this connection is not to be confused with : — (a) Merely speculative sorrow (dolor intellectivus) , i.e., the mere knowledge of the hatefulness and horror of sin. Reason when not blinded can recognize and must recognize clearly the hatefulness and wickedness of sin ; yet in spite of this knowledge the will may cling to it and love it; indeed such cases are of frequent occurrence. (b) Or the feeling of guilt or the remorse of conscience (ter- rores conscienticc) which Luther taught to be of the essence of true sorrow. The feeling of guilt may be present without the help of our will, and even against our will. Remorse of con science may be roused in us without our wishing it, and it may happen that we cannot allay it even when we wish to do so. (c) Finally, the resolve to amend, the resipiscentia, and even the giving up of the sin is not of itself true sorrow ; a man may forsake his sin merely because he has indulged in it to excess, because it has no longer any attraction for him, or because he has become tired of it. True sorrow is not merely a pain and bitterness of heart; it is also a real hatred and horror of sin; but hatred and horror are acts of the will, for it is the will which hates and loves, shrinks from an object or embraces it. The will may shrink from sin at the same time that sensuality makes us crave for the sin; the will, however, must not give way to the craving. Sorrow and detestation of sin are in themselves distinct, yet they are so bound up in man's nature, that, where there is detestation there is necessarily also sorrow, so that true and efficacious sorrow for sin, as sin, cannot exist without detestation of the same.2 2 Compare on this subject the lengthy discussions of Suarez, De Poem- tentia, Disp. 3, Sect. 2 ; Lugo, De Pcenitentia, Disp. 4, Sect. 1 ; Reuter, EXTENT AND EFFICACY OF CONTRITION 73 As to the question whether contrition lies more in sorrow for sin or in detestation of it — in other words, in dislike, hatred, and aversion — theologians answer that contrition is founded principally on detestation for sin, and with reason, for : — (a) By this detestation the sinner retracts his evil will and turns towards God; this detestation is, moreover, the cause of sorrow. When, therefore, it is asserted that the sinner should above all have sorrow for his sins, and when by this is understood a sorrowful hatred of sin, this is correct, for in this case horror of sin is there with its complement. Moreover, we must not lose sight of St. Alphonsus' dictum3 that there is no reason to doubt that one sentiment includes the other; he who has a horror of his sins is sorry for them, and whoever is supernaturally sorry for them detests them. Since contrition is the most important element in the dispo sition of the sinner, it is proper to give in detail the acts which belong to contrition, and to show how the sinner may attain to perfect contrition. First and foremost, a preliminary act of faith and hope of obtaining pardon by the merits of Christ should be made. How can he repent of his sins who does not believe that there is a God and that God is offended by sin, who does not believe that God is faithful to His promises and merciful to sinners, and who does not hope that God will pardon him? These acts of faith and hope, though they need not be made explicitly, are the founda tions of contrition ; on them are built up the remaining elements which go to form the perfect act. These are : — 1. The knowledge of the hatefulness of sin as an offense against God, and of the awful punishments which the sinner Theol. Moral. P. TV. n. 243; and particularly the very lucid exposition of Palmieri, Tract, de Poenit. (Roma, 1879) cap. IV. De act. pcenit. art. I. § 1, p. 214 sq. 3 L. c. L. VI. n. 435. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. de Contritione, n. 14. 74 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE incurs. This knowledge is necessary in order to acquire contri tion, for the law of man's nature makes him love and strive for what his reason proposes to him under the appearance of good, and hate and avoid what it presents as evil. 2. An act of the will, which desires to avoid the evil now known as such ; on this follows : — 3. The hatred of past sins which have caused that evil, and the desire of undoing the sin committed. This desire, in the abstract, is only a velleity and quite inefficacious, for that which is done cannot be undone; but it is of efficacy in so far as it means a wish to undo, if it were possible, the sin by which God has been offended and punishment incurred. 4. From this hatred there arises in the rational appetite or in the will a sorrow and real distress that the sins have been com mitted ; hence also follows : — 5. In the sensitive appetite, by picturing to ourselves the horror and evil consequences of sin, a certain hatred and sorrow, which may become so keen as to produce sighs and tears. 6. The resolve and firm determination never more to sin and offend God, or, what comes to the same thing, a resolution to observe faithfully and perfectly God's commands. 7. Finally, there appears in the truly repentant sinner a willingness to render satisfaction to God for past sins, to chas tise and punish himself, and to repair God's honor.4 Contrition is either perfect or imperfect5 according as the 4 Stotz, Tribunal Pcenitent. Lib. I. P. II. Q. I. art II. 5 This is the distinction given by the Council of Trent in Sess. 14, cp. 4 : Perfect contrition is very aptly and simply called contritio in its restricted meaning, while imperfect contrition is called attritio. The figure is taken from solid bodies which, when pounded to dust, are contrita, but when broken into fragments are attrila. " The heart of man may be compared to wood for kindling. By contrition (contritio and attritio') the heart is rubbed; as the rubbing is increased, the heart, like wood, becomes drier and warmer, till there bursts forth a flame ; this flame is sanctifying grace ; and just as fire consumes wood, so charity consumes the crushed heart (cor contritwri) and burns out its sin." (Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den EXTENT AND EFFICACY OF CONTRITION 75 sorrow and hatred arise from a motive of perfect love or of some supernatural motive which is inferior to perfect love. Since we understand here by love (caritas) the amor benevolentice, by which we love God above all things for His own sake, i.e. on account of His infinite perfections, we may define perfect con trition (contritio) as a sorrow and hatred for past sins together with a firm purpose never more to sin, because sin is an injury to God, who is loved above all things for His own sake. Imperfect contrition (attritio) may be founded on many other supernatural motives ; these are usually, as the Council of Trent declares, the fear of hell or punishment and the hatefulness of sin.6 Thus imperfect contrition may be defined : sorrow and detestation of past sin with the determination never more to sin, because sin is an offense against God, who utterly abhors it on account of its hatefulness and avenges it with punishment. The thought of God, the supreme Lord of all, infinitely holy, to whom sin is detestable by its shamefulness, fills the sinner with confusion; the thought of God, who punishes sin with infinite justice, fills him with -fear of the punishments of sin, and, impelled by this fear, he repents of having offended God by his sin. Perfect and imperfect contrition coincide in this respect, that they are both a supernatural sorrow and hatred for sin regarded as an injury to God; they differ, however, specifically in this, that perfect contrition proceeds from perfect love of God, and imperfect contrition from a variety of other less noble motives; they also differ in their efficacy.7 heilig. Sakramenten, II. Bd. Fiinft. Teil, Zweit. Abschnitt, Erst. Hauptst. § 7, S. 82.) 6 Lugo, De Poenit. Disput. V. Sect. 9, n. 132; Palmieri, Tract, de Poenit. 1. c. th. 21, p. 223. 7 Since perfect contrition arises from perfect love, it is of great impor tance, after considering the infinite goodness and dignity of God, to make an act of love and then an act of sorrow. The synod assembled in 1725 under Benedict XIII offers a form of contrition which was composed for 76 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE 11. The Essential Features of Perfect Contrition. According to the unanimous teaching of theologians, which is based on the Council of Trent, perfect contrition proceeds from perfect love. The Council declares that contrition founded on caritas is perfect ; that, in consequence, its perfection depends on caritas; hence in order to acquire a complete grasp of the nature of perfect contrition we must investigate the nature of love, its degrees and kinds. The love of God, of which only there is question here, has for its object God alone, and the motive of this love is similarly always God Himself. There are many aspects under which God may be presented to us as an object of love, and these aspects determine the different degrees of love. First of all there are two kinds of this love : pure or disinterested love, amor bcne- volentice (amiciticc), and selfish or interested love (amor concupis- centiaz). God can be loved because He is most worthy of love, because He is good, because He is the highest good. If we love God for His own sake because He is most lovable in Himself (prout est in se summum bonum), we have the first kind of love, the pure love of God; if we love Him on our own account be cause He is for us the highest good (prout nobis est summum the use of children : " My Lord and my God, who art infinitely good and holy, I love Thee above all things and repent with my whole heart of having offended Thee so often by my sins. 1 detest them above all other evils. 1 humbly beg Thy forgiveness, and I promise with the help of Thy grace never more to offend Thee." (Collect. Lacensis Cone., Tom. I. p. 458, Fribourg, 1870.) Another form is given by St. Alphonsus: "My God, Thou art infinitely good; therefore I love Thee above all things; and because I love Thee I am sorry for all the sins which I have committed against Thee, O infinite Goodness. My God, I will never more sin against Thee ; I will rather die than offend Thee again." Perfect contrition might be aroused also in the following manner : " O Heart of Jesus, most worthy of all love, I love Thee above all things, and therefore I am sorry for all my sins and detest them above all things, because by them I have offended Thee and incurred Thy anger. I am firmly resolved never more to offend Thee." (Miiller, Theol. Moral. 1. c. § 112.) ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF PERFECT CONTRITION 11 bonum), we have the second kind of love. The pure love of God is called perfect love, the other imperfect. If now we con sider more closely the imperfect love of God, we find two de grees. God is here the object of love in as much as He is good to man, i.e. on the one hand God confers His benefits on man on earth and His everlasting possession in heaven completes the happiness of man hereafter, and on the other hand the loss of God means to man on earth unhappiness and suffering and in the next life the eternal punishment of hell. If a man disregards totally the idea of God as a person to be loved and keeps in view only his own selfish interests, he evidently loves only himself, thinking merely of his own present and future well-being, his own joys and sufferings, his own reward and pun ishment. Such a love, which hardly deserves the name, is downright selfishness and is rightly called a mercenary love (amor mercenarius) . This love corresponds to the fear which is called purely servile, timor serviliter servilis, that fear which hates only the punishment and not the sin, which cherishes the inclination to sin, so that a man would sin if he did not fear punishment. Both love and fear of this kind belong to the lowest degree and destroy all supernatural merit and reward. But there is an imperfect love of God in which man's heart really turns to God' simply because God is good to him, it is true, yet so that he loves Him efficaciously and really and regards the loss of God as the loss of all good and the greatest of misfor tunes. Since in such a love of God there is mingled a great deal of the love of self, so that one love is not present without the other, it cannot yet be called the pure love of God, but receives a special name, the love of chaste concupiscence, amor castcc con- cupiscentia?. To this love corresponds that fear of eternal pun ishment, which does not exclude the thought of God, which fears the punishment of hell because it is the loss of the vision of God, i.e. the pcena damni. This love is called also the amor 78 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE spei, because in it the hope of possessing God in heaven, the highest reward of all pure souls, is an essential element. A higher grade of love, midway between this perfect and imperfect love, is called the love of gratitude, amor gratitudinis, in which we love God for the benefits which He has conferred. When this love is prompted more by the thought of the gifts than the giver, more by the benefit than by the love of the bene factor, it approaches in quality to the love of hope (amor spei) ; one reflects on the past, the other on the future. If, however, the motive of this love of gratitude directly regards the giver and his good will towards mankind, then God is loved with a pure love, for God's benevolence and love towards men are intimately united with His perfections. This kind of love of gratitude may well be classed with pure love or caritas. It is a perfect love (1) because God is loved for His own sake, on account of His infinite goodness and love and generosity, which are identical with God Himself; (2) because it is a benevolent love. All love in respect of its object is either selfish or benevo lent; now this love of gratitude is not selfish because it does not regard its own profit, nor does it strive to gain anything for itself ; (3) because it is a love of friendship, for it is a love which wishes well to Him who loves us and makes a return of love for love.8 A great number of distinguished theologians assert that the love of gratitude is perfect love, and the contrition based on it perfect contrition.9 The Council of Trent might be adduced in favor of this view, since in Sess. 14, cp. 5, can. 4, it enumerates among the motives of imperfect contrition merely the hateful- ness of sin and its punishment without the least reference to the motive of gratitude. It is of considerable moment to settle this point exactly, for, as Deharbe says, "a man might never know how to elicit an act of perfect contrition if he were to form a false notion of perfect love. Who can deny that in 8 Cf. S. Thomas, II. IT. Q. 106, a. 5. 9 Compare Deharbe, Die vollkommene Liebe Gottes, § 6, pp. 139-179. ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF PERFECT CONTRITION 79 many cases salvation depends on an act of perfect contrition, and that even where it is possible to receive the Sacrament of Penance it is always advisable to make at least an effort to arouse not only imperfect but also perfect contrition?"10 We should be loath to omit the remark that the love of Christ crucified is an eminent incentive to perfect love, and that the sorrow for sin which is founded on the thought that sin was the cause of the awful sufferings and shameful death of Our Saviour, belongs to perfect contrition. A man who is well disposed towards Christ, believing Him to be God, has all that is required to arouse perfect love; and if, influenced by this love, he detests and determines to avoid all that brought such great suffering on Christ, he is exercising an act of perfect love and contrition.11 This love is most intimately connected with the love of grati tude, since "for our sins was He wounded and for our iniquities was He stricken." Indeed nothing is so calculated to fill us with gratitude towards God as the thought of all that the Son of God has done and suffered for us. The crib, the cross, and the Sacraments are the three great monuments of His enduring love towards us, and at the same time they are the three inex haustible founts of motives of our love for Him. Hence it is that the Church recalls to us so frequently these benefits of Christ. " When we meditate upon her ceremonies and practices, the spirit of her feasts and solemnities, her altars and temples, her prayers, the sense of the liturgies and the object of her devo tions, our thoughts are compelled to consider the marvelous love of God and what Our Saviour has done and suffered for us, and we are reminded to be thankful to the Lord and to requite His love with our love." 12 10 See Perfect Contrition by Von den Driesch, translated by Father J. Slater, S.J. 11 Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. I. Lib. I. Tract. T. cp. III. § 1. 12 Deharbe, Die vollkoinmene Liebe Gottes, p. 158. 80 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE From this love of gratitude, as the first stage on the way to pure love, we may ascend yet higher and attain to that entirely pure love by which we seek God as the highest good in Himself, as infinite beauty, as complete perfection, as the source of all goodness, beauty, and perfection, without reference, so far as that is possible, to our own profit. This love is shown by joy in God's perfections (amor complacently) ; the soul which has this love forgets itself and is lost in the object of its love for which alone it lives; its sole desire is God's happiness (amor benevolently), and it would willingly add to it (amor desiderii) ] but since such increase is impossible it rejoices in things as they are (amor gaudii). It cannot be disputed that such a disinterested love is possible on earth, since many pious souls have had it in an eminent degree ; still it must be observed that although the higher stages of love surpass and in surpassing absorb the lower, they do not eliminate them entirely; on the contrary, this pure love does not and cannot exclude the love of hope. It is the explicit teaching of the Church that love for God on earth cannot be so disinterested as to exclude all thought of ourselves arid our eternal welfare. This stage of love answers to filial fear (timor filialis) when one thinks no longer about punishment nor fears it, but dreads to give displeasure or offense to the beloved one and carefully avoids all that arouses the anger of God. The sorrow arising from perfect love is therefore perfect sorrow, contritio. This, like unselfish love, may have varying stages of intensity 13 and may be more or less perfect ; no special degree of intensity, however, is required, and the lowest is suffi cient. It is only right and desirable, however, that we should have the greatest sorrow possible for our sins, penetrating soul and body, so that the whole man may repent of his faults and 13 Cf. S. Thomas, Supplem. Q. 5. a. 3 ; S. Alphons. Lib. VI. n. 441 ; Gury, II. 11. 453 , Palmieri, Tract, de Pcenitentia, Thes. XXIV. p. '262 sq. EFFECTS OF PERFECT CONTRITION 81 the tools of sin become again instruments of love.14 This, however, is not always in our power, and, being a grace, we must ask for it. We may now sum up our conclusions : Perfect contrition, contritio, is the hatred of sin proceeding from a pure love of God with a firm resolution of amendment, a disposition which in cludes filial fear, and, so far from excluding the hope of salva tion and fear of punishment, tends rather to develop them.15 12. The Effects of Perfect Contrition and the Obligation of Procuring it. Perfect contrition restores the sinner to grace at once, even before he has approached the Sacrament of Penance, though the desire of receiving the Sacrament is necessary; it removes the eternal punishment and in part the temporal punishment. The first part of this statement is fidei proxima, for the Coun cil of Trent teaches 1G that perfect contrition reconciles man to God before the Sacrament is received, but that this reconcilia tion by perfect contrition is not effected without the desire, which is included in the act of contrition, of receiving the Sacra ment. This doctrine was confirmed by the condemnation pronounced by Gregory XIII and Urban VIII on the twenty- first and thirty-second of the propositions of Baius. Baius and Jansenius taught among other things that perfect contrition without the Sacrament cannot restore to grace unless in excep tional circumstances, e.g. in martyrdom, at the hour of death, when there is no possibility of confessing, or when it is summe intensa. 14 Cat. Roman. P. II. cp. 5, n. 27. 15 Compare Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heil. Sakramenten, Funfter Teil, Zweiter Abschnitt, § 7, III. Aufl. S. 71 ff. ; Deharbe, Die voll- kommene Liebe Gottes, §§ 2, 3, 6, 8 ; Suarez, De Poen. Disp. IT. Sect. 3 et Disp. IV. Sect. 2 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 35-42 ; Palmieri, Tract, de POSH. Thes. IV, V ; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. I. L. I. Tr. I. n. 318. 16 Sess. XIV. cp. 4. 82 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE Finally, this doctrine of the efficacy of perfect contrition is clearly expressed in Holy Scripture and in the monuments of tradition; the proofs belong to the domain of dogmatic the ology.17 We add only a single consideration which springs from a well-known principle: Perfect contrition arises from love and is in its essence nothing but an act of love. Now per fect love unites us to God, so that we live in Him and He in us.18 This perfect union with God overcomes all separation from Him which arose through sin. Such, then, is the effect of perfect contrition, however poor and weak it may be, for in spite of this it is a sorrow which is inspired and informed by perfect love. Nor does a greater or less degree change the species ; the Council of Trent is positive in its declaration that perfect contrition reconciles us to God, and assigns no limit which must be attained before pro ducing this effect. Such, too, is the unanimous teaching of St. Thomas,19 St. Alphonsus,20 and the other great theologians. The sinner is restored to grace by perfect contrition without the Sacrament only when he has the intention of receiving it, for the actual, or at least intentional, reception of the Sacra ment is the one single means ordained by Christ for the removal of mortal sin. This intention is included in the act of perfect contrition, as the Council of Trent goes on to teach; hence all theologians hold that the implicit desire (votum implicitum) is sufficient, for whoever has true contrition has the wish to fulfill all the commands of God, and hence the command of Christ enjoining the confession of sin.21 Perfect contrition is an act 17 The proof is well developed by P. Palmieri, S.J., Tract, de Poenitent. Theses XXII et XXIII, p. 224 (Romse, 1879). Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. QQ. 23-27. 18 1. John iv. 16. 19 Supplem. Q. 5, a. 3. Quantumcunque parvus sit dolor, dummodo ad con- tritionis rationem sufficiat, omnem culpam dele.t. 20 Lib. VI. n. 441. 21 S. Thorn. Supplem. Q. 5, a. 2 ad 1. Contritio vera nan fuit, nisi propo- EFFECTS OF PERFECT CONTRITION 83 of perfect love, and this urges man to fulfill the commands of God in accordance with Christ's words: "He who loves Me will keep My word." 22 Hence it may happen that a sinner is justified by an act of perfect contrition without any actual confession ; it is sufficient that he does not exclude the purpose of confessing his sin.23 The resolution to confess the sin does not include the resolu tion to confess it as soon as possible (quam primum). It is enough to confess when a precept of God or of the Church urges.24 The other effect of perfect contrition, the remission of eternal punishment, follows from what we have been already consider ing; moreover the condemnation of Baius' seventieth proposi tion makes this doctrine proxima fidei. This, too, is the teaching of all Catholic theologians.25 The guilt is removed by sancti fying grace; but one who has sanctifying grace is a child of God, and has as his heritage a claim to heaven. Finally, we gather from the Council of Trent 20 and the com mon doctrine of theologians 27 that a part also of the temporal punishment of sin, in proportion to the intensity of contrition, is remitted, so that a very great and perfect contrition may blot out all the temporal punishment. Two very practical remarks, applicable both to confessor and to penitent, may find their place here. Mortal sin is not forgiven, and the sinner is not reconciled to God, till he has made good the injury done to God; in other situm confitendi Jiabuerit annexum ; quod debet ad effectum reduci etiam propter prceceptum quod est de confessions datum. 22 John xiv. 23. 28 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 437, Dub. 4. 24 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 275; Miiller, 1. c. § 113, 2. 26 S. Thorn. III. Q. 89, a. 4; Suarez, De Pcenit. Disp. X. Sect. 2. 26 Sess. VI. c. 14; Sess. XIV. c. 8 et can. 12. 27 S. Bonavent. Theol. verit. L. VI. c. 24. S. Thomas, Suppl. Q. 5, a. 2. Ballerini, De Pcenit. L. VI. c. 6. 84 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE words, till he has done penance. This is a truth of faith.28 It follows, then, that he who has the misfortune to fall into sin is obliged to repent of it, and in such wise as to obtain forgiveness ; to adopt any other course is to frustrate the whole end of his existence. He must therefore make an act of perfect contrition, or supplement the imperfect contrition by the Sacrament of Penance. This obligation is certainly pressing when there is danger of death, because it is the necessary means for salvation, and every man is bound by love of God and of himself to take precautions against being forever an enemy of God and of being involved in eternal damnation. The question now arises whether on other grounds there is a strict obligation of making an act of perfect contrition, for instance, from the consideration of God who has been offended, or for our own interests, since we may die at any moment, and because one who is in a state of mortal sin is but little capable of avoiding other mortal sins. The following answer may be given : - 1. God might have insisted that the sinner should make good at once after his sin the evil committed, and the injury done to God by mortal sin would be quite motive enough for such legis lation. As a matter of fact God does not make any such de mand; instead of insisting on His rights, He is long-suffering and permits the sinner to heap offense on offense. On the other hand, a man cannot remain long in mortal sin without offending God again and once more incurring sin; for it is an insult to the love we owe to God to remain long a slave of the devil and an enemy of God, and such behavior on the part of the sinner makes him- guilty of contempt of God's friendship and rights. To incur, however, grievous sin in this way, the neglect to make an act of perfect contrition must have extended 28 Cf . Trid. Sess. XIV. 1. c., from which we infer that penance is neces sary for salvation necessitate medii. OBLIGATION OF PERFECT CONTRITION 85 over a considerable time. As to what constitutes a considerable time, it is not easy to define a hard-and-fast limit; a period of several years would certainly be considerable, and it would be a grave sin to remain so long a time in the state of mortal sin; but a man who reconciles himself to God within the limits of the time prescribed by the Church for confession would certainly not incur a new sin per se, special circumstances, of course, being excluded which might demand that an act of perfect con trition be made at once.29 The possibility of dying before being reconciled to God is certainly a very strong motive to induce a man to consult the safety of his soul and to free it as soon as possible from the state of mortal sin; for at any moment death may surprise a man without warning. If, however, there be no pressing danger of death, that possibility is not sufficient to make delay of recon ciliation a new sin; hence one who dies a sudden death may be plunged into hell by sins for which he had not atoned, but he would not be guilty of a new sin by having put off his repentance. But there is an obligation to avoid putting off for a long time one's conversion, and hence an act of perfect contrition after mortal sin, because a man in the state of mortal sin is in the greatest danger of falling into other mortal sins, since he has not strength enough to vanquish severe temptations and to with stand the violence of his passions, and since, as St. Gregory the Great 30 says, the unrepented mortal sins which burden his soul draw him by their weight into other worse sins. " Without sanctifying grace it is not possible to refrain long from mortal sin/' says St. Thomas;31 the sinner might, if he wished, have 29 Ballerini deals excellently with this point in his Op. Theol. Mor. in cp. III. De prsec. et oblig. confession, n. 138 ss. Cf. Suarez, De Poanit. Disp. 15, Sect. 6, n. 7 ; Sporer, De Pcen. n. 186. 80 In Ezechiel, Lib. I. Horn. 11, n. 24. «i I. II. Q. 109, a. 8. 86 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE the necessary moral strength to overcome temptation and to resist his passions; he might curb them by the divine power of grace; but there is the law of the distribution of God's graces, that God gives only to those who love Him efficacious grace, and while a man persists of his own free will in the state of sin and enmity with God, he equivalently expresses his contempt of grace and so makes himself unworthy of it. As God is ever pouring richer and richer graces on those who make good use of them and cooperate with them, so He withdraws them from those who neglect and resist them. Hence we may adopt the well-founded teaching of St. Alphonsus,32 who states that the sinner ought not to put off for longer than a month his reconcil iation with God; in other words, that the act of perfect contri tion should not be delayed beyond that time. By such delay he would incur a new sin. This subject, moreover, is intimately connected with the duty of eliciting the act of love ; for accord ing to a very probable opinion of many theologians, of whom the authority is recognized and approved by St. Alphonsus, we are bound to elicit at least once a month an act of love, because we should keep God's commands either not at all or at least with great difficulty if we failed for so long a time to elicit such an act, and if we were so little solicitous about our duty of loving God. It is impossible to make an act of perfect love without bewailing one's sins by which a God so infinitely worthy of love has been offended. Hence St. Alphonsus in his practical direc tions to confessors says: 33 "The duty of making an act of con trition is urgent when one is obliged to make an act of love." 34 32 Lib. VI. n. 437. 83 Tract. 16, cp. 2, n. 10. 34 The question raised by theologians as to whether it is a distinct sin to put off eliciting the act of perfect contrition and reconciliation with God, must be answered in the affirmative, for Holy Scripture enjoins us not to delay our conversion or to put off penance from day to day, because the anger of God may come upon us when we are so unprepared (cf. Ecclus. v. 8, 9, where, however, no express command is laid down), and because the OBLIGATION OF PERFECT CONTRITION 87 Since the faithful for the most part are ignorant of any obli gation of making an act of perfect contrition within a given time after falling into mortal sin, and, therefore, incur no sin by the non-fulfillment of it, the confessor need not trouble him self to make inquiries about it in the past life of his penitents; indeed he may abstain from instructing them on the existence of such obligation. But he should not fail — without, however, mentioning that neglect means a new sin — to urge his penitents by other motives to return to a state of grace, for the future, as quickly as possible after falling into mortal sin, at least by an act of perfect contrition, and, if occasion offer, by going to con fession. Sad experience shows that one fall into mortal sin is very soon followed by others.35 Finally, there is an obligation (per accidens) to awaken per fect contrition when one has to exercise some act for which a state of grace is required and the Sacrament of Penance is not accessible. A priest, for instance, is in a state of mortal sin and is called upon to administer one of the Sacraments, or one of the prceceptum caritatis which we ought to obey scepius in vita calls for an act of contrition. Aertnys reconciles this affirmative opinion of Lugo, Suarez, St. Alphon- sus, etc., with the opposite view of Navarro, Vasquez, Soto, etc., declaring the latter to be probable per se loquendo, while the former is true tie obliga- tione per accidens, so that the sinner who fails to elicit an act of perfect contrition within a reasonable period is not to be acquitted of incurring a new mortal sin. Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. 3, n. 168. St. Alphon- sus expressly condemns the view of Concilia and Roncaglia that a delay of a week is a considerable period ; and similarly he rejects the opinion of Laymann, Lugo, the Salmanticenses, Elbel, etc., who maintain that sin has been incurred only by the neglect of contrition for a whole year. This latter view he cannot accept, even if there were no other reason than the duty of eliciting an act of love once in the month. Finally, he rejects the opinion of some theologians that a sinner must elicit acts of contrition on feast-days in order to fulfill the object of sanctifying the festival ; the gen eral answer is made that the object of any given precept does not fall under the precept. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. III. n. 1035 ss. 85 Miiller, 1. c. Lib. III. I. II. § 115, I; Lehinkuhl, 1. c. n. 278; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 168, Q, I. 88 THE 11EC1P1ENT OF PENANCE faithful has to receive one of the Sacraments of the living and cannot get absolution beforehand. This also holds true if an act of perfect love has to be made; in this case every one is obliged, when there occurs to his mind a mortal sin not yet repented of, to detest the same and to be sorry for it from the motive of the love of God. According to the general opinion of theologians an act of love should be made in the hour of death, whence St. Alphonsus teaches that a dying man who has confessed with only imperfect sorrow should be recommended to elicit an act of perfect contrition, for it is impossible to make an act of love without bewailing the sins from the same motive of love.36 Finally, this duty is pressing when one is exposed to severe temptations which cannot be overcome while one is in a state of enmity with God. We would add another observation : Since perfect contrition is so pleasing to God and so helpful to those sinners especially who have fallen seriously, the pastor of souls should seize every opportunity of instructing the faithful and urging them to elicit such acts frequently, especially when they are in danger of death and have no opportunity of approaching the Sacrament of Pen ance. Children particularly should be taught on this subject, and a good form of the act given to them. They may have need of it themselves in order to be saved from eternal damnation, and they may come to the assistance of their elders at the hour of death; indeed experience teaches that well-instructed children more than once have reminded people in such straits of the act of perfect contrition, and have persuaded those persons to make it with them; finally, what has been learned in childhood will turn out useful to many in their old age. 13. Imperfect Contrition. The effects of imperfect contrition (attrition) are not so great as those of perfect contrition. Imperfect contrition, which ex- 36 II. A. 1. c. n. 11, Lib. VI. n. 437, Dub. 2 ; Suarez, Disp. 15, Sect. 4, u. 19 ; Lacroix, Lib. II. n. 142, etc. IMPERFECT CONTRITION 89 eludes the desire of sinning and includes the hope of pardon (this belongs to the sorrow necessary for the Sacrament of Penance), is the proximate disposition which the sinner must have if he is to be justified in the Sacrament of Penance. This is of faith.37 Passages almost innumerable of the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, decrees of Councils and theologians, present this doc trine as revealed by God.38 Consequently it is the common and certain teaching of theo logians that to receive the grace of the Sacrament of Penance imperfect contrition is sufficient, and that perfect contrition is not of necessity. The Council of Trent declares expressly : " Although imperfect contrition without the Sacrament of Pen ance is not able per se to restore the sinner to justifying grace, yet it disposes him for the reception of grace in this Sacrament." The Council is speaking here of the ultimate or proximate dispo sition which, in union with the Sacrament, suffices for the remis sion of sin; for it opposes the efficacy of imperfect contrition with the Sacrament to its inefficacy without the Sacrament. Without the Sacrament it cannot produce justification, but dis poses towards its reception in the Sacrament; it must therefore produce in the Sacrament this justification, and the disposition of which the Council speaks must be understood of the proximate disposition which is immediately followed by grace ; otherwise the contrast drawn between the two would have no meaning. 37 Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 4 et can. 5, which is directed against Luther's doctrine that all fear of punishment is wicked, and that imperfect contri tion, founded on the fear of hell, by making a man a hypocrite, makes him a greater sinner. Cf. Bellarmin, De Pceu. Lib. IF. cp. 2; Mohler, Sym bolism, § 33. Luther's error was in part adopted by Bains, Jansenius, and Quesnel. Cf. Prop. 60, 61, 62 et 67 Quesnellii a P. M. Clem. XI in Bulla " Unigenitus," prescript; Prop. 15 et 16 damn, ab Alexandro VIII, in which some of Quesnel's errors are again condemned. 88 Cf. Bellarmin, 1. c. Lib. II. cp. 17; Perrone, De Pcenitent. n. 46 s. ; Pvi- palda, De Ente supernaturali, Tom. IV. Disp. 22, Sect. 4-11, et Lib. VI. Disp. ult. n. 458-460; Palmieri, Tract, de Poenitentia, pp. 280-353 (Rom. 1879) ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I. De sufficientia attritionis, n. 42-50. 90 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE This conclusion is confirmed when we consider the institution of the Sacrament. Christ's object in instituting this Sacrament was to restore the baptized to the life of grace; if it did not really confer the grace of justification, it would have been a means frustrated of its end, and would not have the power which it was intended to have; it could not be expected to call for dispositions which of themselves would atone for sin, and this would be the case if perfect contrition were the required dispo sition. A remedy for a disease would be a poor gift if it could not cure the disease until the latter was already removed. Finally, the Church received the power of the keys in order that it might loose or retain sins; if perfect contrition were required as the necessary condition, the sins would not be re mitted by the power of the keys, but by the dispositions of the penitent. Therefore imperfect contrition is sufficient for justifi cation in the Sacrament of Penance.39 Since imperfect contrition in union with the Sacrament has the same effects as perfect contrition without the Sacrament, theologians say that the penitent becomes in the Sacrament ex attrito contritus; this expression is not to be understood of the act, as though attritio became contritio. Imperfect contrition, as we have already seen, arises from the thought of the hideousness of sin and from the fear of the pun ishment which God in His justice inflicts on the sinner. The following are the classes into which, according to St. Thomas/0 fear is divided : - 1. Worldly fear, timor mundanus, when man is feared more than God, or when one offends God in order to avoid suffering. 2. Natural fear, timor naturalis, the fear of temporal mis fortunes. 39 8. Alph. 1. Co Lib. VI. n. 440; Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. cp. III. § 2; Stotz, 1. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q. I. a. VI; Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. n. 176; Palmieri, Tract, de Pcenit. Thes. XXV. p. 286 ss. 40 II. II. Q. 19, a. 2-9. IMPERFECT CONTRITION 91 3. Slavish fear, timor serviliter servilis, when one shrinks from sm merely from fear of punishment, and when one is ready to sin again if there were no punishment. Theologians say of such a man : solum manum cohibet, voluntatem autem non retrahit a peccato. Quite distinct from this fear is : — 4. Servile fear, timor servilis, when a man fears the punish ments which God inflicts on sin, and on that account really avoids and detests sin : qui non solum manum sed etiam volun tatem cohibet a peccato, as the schoolmen express it. 5. Filial fear, timor filialis sen castus, is the fear of a man who honors and loves God as his Lord and Father, and from that motive avoids sin and loves the law of God. The last two kinds of fear conjoined form : - 6. Mixed fear, timor mixtus sen initialis, which is the disposi tion of a man who fears sin because it offends God and also be cause it is punished. Hence St. Thomas gives a clear and short account of these last three kinds of fear : Sometimes man turns to God and clings to Him because he is afraid of evil. This evil may be twofold, the evil of punishment and the evil of guilt. If a man turn and cling to God from fear of punishment, this is servile fear; and when it is done from fear of guilt it is filial fear, for children are afraid of offending their father; if, how ever, it is done from the fear of the punishment and of the guilt, it is then timor initialis, which is intermediate between servile and filial fear.41 The sorrow proceeding from servile fear is attritio, that im perfect sorrow which, when it excludes the desire of sinning and is joined to the hope of pardon, disposes the sinner to receive the grace of justification in the Sacrament of Penance. It may now be asked whether, along with this imperfect sorrow based on fear as its only motive, there may not be required besides, in order « II. II. Q. 19, a. 2 ; Stotz, 1. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q. I. 92 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE to dispose the sinner proxime for the receiving of grace, some sort of love, at least initial, or whether this love be included in that sorrow. On this subject the Council has given no direct answer. In the seventeenth century this question was debated with such heat that Alexander VII (June, 1667), in order to establish peace, forbade, in the strongest terms and under pain of excommunication latw sententicc, that any of the disputants in this matter should accuse their opponents of heresy. Four dis tinct views were proposed and defended on this subject : - 1. The first view teaches that sorrow from the motive of fear, as long as it is true sorrow, is quite sufficient of itself for obtain ing sanctifying grace in the Sacrament. This sorrow produces hatred and detestation of sin and a return to God's law, and is inseparable from the hope of pardon. Hence the sinner becomes capable of receiving the grace of the Sacrament. Melchior Canus is the most famous of the defenders of this view, who are called Attritionists because they hold that mere attrition from the fear of the punishments inflicted on sin is a sufficient disposition. They thought that every sort of love was excluded from this con trition based on fear, a position which seems impossible both psychologically and in view of the action of grace; as was evi dently the general opinion of the Fathers at the Council of Trent. Instead of the present clause in cap. 4 : attritio eum ad gratiam in sacramento pcenitentice impetrandam disponit, another had been presented to them : ad constitutionem sacramenti sufficit, ac donum Dei esse ac Spiritus S. impulsum verissimum non adhuc quidem inhabitants sed tantum moventis quo poenitens adjutus (cum sine aliquo dilectionis in Deum motu esse vix queat) viam sibi ad justitiam munit et per earn ad Dei gratiam facilius impetrandum disponitur. Since it was urged that men of eminent learning made a distinction between such sorrow and love, the present form of the clause was chosen in order to avoid defining a scho lastic question on which the Doctors were not of one mind ; by using the word disponit the Council did not wish to mean a IMPERFECT CONTRITION 93 sufficient disposition, and to indicate this more clearly it pur posely avoided the use of the word sufficit.42 2. The second opinion holds that the sorrow based on fear is sufficient only when there is joined with it some beginning of the love of God, as our highest good. This view supported by the most eminent theologians rests on solid foundations, and is now the more usual opinion among theologians. That there is nothing in this view opposed to the Council of Trent is clear from what has been said above on this point. In another place in the Sixth Session (cap. 6) there is indirect authority for it, where the Council, in describing the progress towards prepara tion for the first grace, teaches that the sinner who is disposing his soul for justification must begin to love God as the source of all justice.43 Hence as preparation for the first justification of adults a be ginning at least of love is required. Now what is required for their first justification in Baptism, that, at the very least, is demanded for the second justification by Penance, since, as the Fathers express it, Penance is a toilsome Baptism, baptismus laboriosus; consequently if a distinction is to be made in terms of greater or less, greater dispositions are required for Penance 42 Pallavicini, Hist. Concil. Trid. L. XIII. c. 10. Palrnieri tries to weaken the force of this argument ; see Tract, de Prenit. Thesis XXX. p. 331 ss. 43 "They [adults] dispose themselves for justification when, being urged and supported by God's grace, receiving faith by hearing, they approach God of their own free will, believing that to be true which -is revealed and promised by God, and especially this, that the sinner is justified by God through His grace, through the redemption in Jesus Christ; and while they acknowledge their sins, they are led by fear of the divine justice, of which they have a wholesome dread, to the consideration of God's mercy, and thence are encouraged to hope, so that they trust that God will be gracious to them for Christ's sake, and they will begin to love Him as the source ef all justice." Sess. VT. cp. 6; cf. can. 3: "If any one say that a man without previous inspiration of the Holy Ghost ?«nd without His help can believe, hope, love, and do penance as is required in order to attain the grace of justification, a. s." 94 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE than for Baptism. Moreover, the Council is unmistakably clear in its declaration that what it teaches with regard to the first justification applies equally to the justification by penance.44 In the place where the Council treats of the sorrow re quired as a preparation for the Sacrament of Penance, it speaks of it plainly as the beginning of a new life ; 45 such it could not be if it did not include love, or at least the beginnings of love ; for since the new life consists in the love of God, the beginning of the new life must of necessity include the beginning of the love of God.46 A third reason may be found in the very nature of the subject. According to the Church's teaching, the justification of an adult means a real conversion, and this of itself includes a beginning of love. By mortal sin man turns from God to the creature ; if the conversion is to be real, he must not only turn away from the creature, but also return to God, and that cannot happen without some initial love. Moreover, it is in the very nature of man ever to desire and love something as his highest good, be it the creature, as happens in mortal sin, or the Creator ; since by his conversion he ceases to make the creature his sole object and aim, he must direct his desires to God the uncreated good, and so must love God at least as his highest good. But this love which is required to accompany imperfect con trition in order to make it a sufficient disposition for obtaining grace in the Sacrament, is not the beginning of the amor benevo- 44 Cf. Prooemium to the Fourth Session de s. Poenitent. sncram. : "Although the oecumenical . . . synod in its decisions on justification (Sess. VI.) has repeatedly spoken in the same urgent manner of the Sacrament of Penance on account of its intimate connection with the matter in hand, yet none the less," etc. 45 Sess. XIV. cp. IV. 46 The words at the beginning of the fourth chapter : " nan solum cessa- tionem a peccato et vitce novce propositum et inclioationem et . . ." needt not of necessity be understood of perfect contrition, which is discussed later. In this place it is more likely that the question of contrition in general is under discussion. IMPERFECT CONTRITION 95 (entice or the caritas perfecta or perfect love; for, as has been seen above, any act of contrition proceeding from perfect love in any degree at once restores a man to grace without the recep tion of the Sacrament; similarly the beginning of perfect love, joined with imperfect contrition, would justify the sinner with out the Sacrament.47 Penance would thus be a meaningless institution. It is rather the beginning of the amor concupiscen- tice or of the caritas imperfecta, in which we love God because He is good to us. This beginning of love is included in imper fect contrition, which arises chiefly from the fear of God's punishments; for Holy Scripture (Ecclus. xxv. 16) calls the fear of God the beginning of love. Hope of eternal happiness is another motive, for, as St. Thomas of Aquin says, when we hope to obtain a benefit from any one we are drawn towards him and begin to love him. Whoever, then, has imperfect contrition and receives the Sacrament in the hope of pardon, already begins to love God as his liberator, his champion, his Lord. No special intensity is required in this love; it need only be the beginning of love, as long as the love is real — and this is called amor initialise 3. A third opinion demands, not a beginning of imperfect love, but perfect love in its first stages, that is, caritas initialis. It need not, however, be so strong as to suffice to remove sin of itself, nor need it be independent of other motives, such as ser- 47 Compare § 12. 48 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 442. Objic. Ill; Scavini, Theol. Moralis Universa, T. IV. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. I. n. 23; Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. cp. III. § 2; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 177; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. V. Sect. II. cp. I, § 2, n. 288 et 289; Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heil. Sakraraent. II. Bd. Fiinfter Teil, Zweiter Abschn. Erst. Hauptst. § 7, p. 86 if. III. Aufl. ; Miiller, 1. c. Lib. III. Tr. II. § 114; Martin, Lehrbuch der kath. Moral. § 243; Tappehorn, Anleituhg zur Verwalt. des Buss-Sakramentes, § 11, p. 89 ft'. This doctrine was adopted by all the schools after the Council of Trent, as Benedict XIV affirms, I)e Syn., etc.. Lib. VII. c. 13; and Alexander VII published in a decree of May 5, 1657, that this view Jiodie inter scholasticos communis videtur. 96 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE vile fear. Such sorrow, however, would be no longer attritio, but contritio, which in any degree by itself justifies the sinner apart from the Sacrament. 4. The fourth opinion goes yet further and requires that along with attritio there should be not only pure love, but in such measure that of itself it should move the sinner to bewail his sins and give them up. This is of its nature contritio, whence the defenders of this last opinion are called contritionists.49 This question is not one of mere theoretical interest, but is of highly practical application; for if the acts of the penitent are the materia proxima of the Sacrament, and if it is the confessor's duty to make certain of the presence of these acts before giving absolution, he must do so also with respect to contrition; for this reason he must study the nature and properties of contri tion in order to secure the integrity of the Sacrament. From this it is at once apparent that the contritionist must proceed differently from the attritionist. The former will, if he is true to his principles, not only investigate whether the peni tent's sorrow for sin be joined with belief and hope of pardon, but also whether that sorrow proceed from the love of God, or at least the beginning of it, which love must be a love of God above all things. This investigation, however, is very difficult, and wearisome to confessor and penitent, at least if the latter be uninstructed. The attritionist, on the contrary, merely inquires whether his penitent has sorrow springing from a motive of faith and the hope of forgiveness this inquiry offers no diffi culty to either confessor or penitent. Once it is established that the sorrow comes from a motive of faith and is joined to the hope of pardon, one may fairly presume and conclude that there is amor initialis, so that further investigation is superflu ous; for if we hope for good from any one, we have already at least a beginning of love for him. 49 Scaviui, 1. c. Tract. X. Adnotat. n. 188 et 189, IMPERFECT CONTRITION 97 Moreover, the confessor will observe that since the view re quiring a beginning of love with imperfect contrition is more probable than the opposite, probabilitate externa et interna, it is also the safer; since, however, in giving and receiving the Sac raments an explicit papal decision enjoins the adoption of the safer view, it is not only of counsel but of precept, strongly bind ing, to elicit before receiving the Sacrament of Penance together with contrition an act of love, if only initial love. Though the initial love which is comprised in the imperfect contrition is not the love of benevolence or caritas, but the amor concupiscenticc, yet caritas is in no way excluded from it, and cannot be ex cluded without grievous sin on the part of the penitent. Would it not be the sign of a bad disposition if a man were expressly unwilling to avoid sin if it did not deprive him of heaven or lead him to hell? "I do not say," says St. Francis de Sales on this subject, "that this sorrow excludes the perfect love of God ; I say only that it does not of its own nature include it ; it neither rejects it nor embraces it; it is not opposed to love, but it can exist without it." Thus imperfect contrition disposes the penitent towards per fect love. Any one who desires and hopes to attain so great a boon as the grace of God, all unmerited as it is, will certainly be unable to refrain from meditating on the infinite love which pro cures him this great grace, and from that he will rise to the love of God for His own sake as infinitely good and lovable. Hence St. Thomas says that whenever a man hopes to get a benefit from God he is led to love God for His own sake only.50 We add one more practical observation : The imperfect con trition arising from fear of hell, which excludes the desire of sin, and in which is contained at least virtually the hope of pardon, is quite sufficient to secure the fruit of the Sacrament of Pen- 50 S. Thorn. De Spe, a. 3 ; and St. Francis de Sales writes : " La penitence nait dedans 1'ainour et plusienrs fois la penitence venant en nos esprits Tainour vient en la penitence." Theot. L. IT. c. '20. 98 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE ance; yet we ought to take pains that we have, as far as possible, perfect contrition, not only because this is more pleas ing to God, but also because in this way the grace is made more certain and more grace is obtained and a greater measure of the temporal punishment remitted; because we are thus more sure of attaining true and necessary attrition, and finally, because we fulfill in this manner the precept which binds us to make, from time to time during our lives, an act of love. In deed if a penitent chose to dwell only on the lowest motives of contrition, it would be a sign that his heart was not sufficiently fixed upon God, and there would be occasion for suspecting that there still lurked in his soul an undue affection for sin, curbed only by fear of punishment.51 14. The Necessary Qualities of Contrition. If the Sacrament of Penance is to be received validly and with fruit, the contrition must be real, formal, supernatural, univer sal, supreme, and sacramental.52 1. First of all, the contrition must be real or genuine. Now contrition is, according to the Council of Trent, a grief of the soul and a horror of sin. A sorrow expressed only in words would be a sham sorrow ; that would not do : a real sorrow is required. A sorrow merely imaginary, even without guilt on the part of the penitent, in which case his good faith would cer tainly save him from the guilt of a sacrilege, could not possibly supply for the want of a necessary and essential part of the Sacrament.53 Hence God's command by the prophet Joel: Scindite corda vestra et non vestimenta vestra — Rend your hearts and not your garments (the sign of mourning; Joel ii. 3). And truly it is meet that sorrow should begin there where sin had 51 Renter, S.J., Theol. Moral. P. IV. n. 2, § 3; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 442 in fine. 52 Compare Trident. Sess. XIV. cp. 4 et can. 5. 53 Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I. I)e attritione existimata, n. 51 ss THE NECESSARY QUALITIES OF CONTRITION 99 its origin, namely, in the heart ; for from the heart, as the Scrip ture tells us, come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, etc.54 The contrition must be formal, i.e. explicit; a virtual or im plicit contrition, such as is contained in another act, say in an act of love or the resolution to confess and receive absolution, is not enough even though it excludes the affection towards sin. Thus a penitent might conceivably elicit an act of perfect love without making any act of contrition, and then, after con fessing his sins, be justified in virtue of the act of perfect love, though he would not validly receive absolution if he confined himself to the act of love. The contrition must be quite explicit, for it is the essential matter of the Sacrament, and virtual matter here would be about as practical as virtual bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Hence it is not enough to say : "I love thee, 0 my God, above all things, because thou art the sovereign good; forgive me my sins." Such words are only an act of love and a prayer for pardon, not a formal act of sorrow. The words must be explicit: "I am sorry for my sins." 55 Hence we see the error in the opinion held by several of the older theologians, who called attrition any kind of sorrow which did not come up to the standard of perfect contrition by want of an adequate motive of sorrow, or through deficiency of reso lution of amendment, or because sin was not shunned as the greatest of evils. Others besides have conjectured that it was necessary and sufficient for absolution in the Sacrament that the penitent be lieves he had contrition, i.e. that he ought to make efforts to be contrite and to believe that he has perfect contrition; such a putative sorrow, according to them, was sufficient, however dis tinct it might be from the sorrow of perfect contrition. 54 Matt. xv. 19. 55 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 449; Scavini, 1. c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cap. II. art. I. n. 12; Lacroix, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. p. 2, n. 060; Ballerini, Op. Thcol. Mor. 1. c. De attritioiie, n. 77 ss. Cf. Suarez, I)e Poen. Disp. 9, Sect. 1 ; Lugo, IV Pfpn. Disp. 4, n. 93, 100 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE Both views are false. If imperfect contrition were only a velleity, instead of being a real horror of sin, it would not be sufficient for the Sacrament, and such sorrow could never be called genuine attrition. On the contrary, any sorrow which has the properties enumerated above is sufficient even if the penitent knowingly confine his efforts to imperfect contrition without aspiring to perfect it.56 There were also some theologians who maintained as a prob able opinion that the virtual sorrow included in a formal act of love or in a resolution of amendment was sufficient. This view is stigmatized by Suarez as rash, by Vasquez as false. Other theologians, however, consider that this condemnation is too severe. On this question Reuter 57 remarks that a penitent need not be worried about the formal act of sorrow if he rfas elicited an act of perfect love while reflecting on his sins (memor peccato- rum), for it is morally impossible for any one with his sins before his eyes to elicit an act of perfect love of God without detesting his sins. The same may be said with regard to the purpose of amendment, for it is morally impossible to form it without hav ing formal sorrow. This is made clear from the consideration of any practical resolution which is based on supernatural mo tives ; for if the hatred of sin is not yet a formal detestation and sorrow of past sin, it becomes so in any one who reflects that he has been guilty of sin.58 2. The sorrow which disposes for the worthy reception of the Sacrament must on the one hand be prompted by divine super natural grace which begins, accompanies, and perfects the whole work of salvation, and on the other must proceed from some 66 Cf. Busenbaum, Theol. Moral. Tract. TV. (de Sacram. poenit.) c. 1, d. 11, resolv. 1 et 2 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. V. Sect. II. § 2, n. 284; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. « Theol. Mor. p. IV. n. 247. 58 Cf . Vasquez, De Poenit. Q. 86, Dub. 4, de proposito ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Tract. V. De Sacram. Pom. Sect, II. § 2, n. 284. THE NECESSARY QUALITIES OF CONTRITION 101 supernatural motive based on faith ; for the dispositions required for a supernatural gift must be supernatural. The second con dition is more important, for God will certainly give grace to a man to do that which he is obliged to do. Merely natural or worldly love or fear will give rise to natural sorrow ; supernatu ral sorrow springs from a supernatural fear or love of God. The distinction between the two is not merely quantitative but quali tative ; they have nothing in common, and no amount of natu ral sorrow will ever rise to the dignity of supernatural sorrow. Natural sorrow is of no efficacy in the work ' of conversion. When the prophets exhort to repentance they do not confine themselves to exhort the sinner, "Be converted/1 but, "Be ye converted to the Lord your God." A true penitent was, in their eyes, not one who turned from his sins; they required that he should also turn to God. Sorrow, then, must have a religious character, must be prompted by divine grace, must spring either from fear or love of God. If sorrow is to have this supernatural character, it must be based on supernatural motives suggested by faith. Faith is the first condition for justification which the Council of Trent de mands of the sinner; in addition to this other conditions are laid down, especially the act of hope. These acts need not be formally elicited, but it is required that the motive of. sorrow for sin should proceed from faith if it is to be of use for salva tion. We may thus approach the question which, as Lehmkuhl says, many moralists treat with a certain scrupulosity — whether before the Sacrament is received explicit acts of faith and hope must be made, or whether implicit acts are sufficient. Lehm kuhl himself answers the question as follows : 59 To require that the penitent should elicit an act of faith with its formal object 69 Theol. Moral. 1. c. n. 286; similarly Aertnys, 1. c. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. cp. T. n. 141; Snare/, De Pcen. Disp. 4, Sect. 2, n. 7. 102 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE explicitly and with deliberation before or apart from the act of contrition is unreasonable; there would be reason for it only in the case of a penitent who had lost his faith by sinning against it. But an act of faith meaning the assent to a proposition of faith wrhich springs from the habit of faith (assenswn in aliquam veritatem ut fide notam ab habitu fidei oriundum), is rightly de manded since it is otherwise impossible to derive contrition from a supernatural motive. Thus there is no doubt that a formal and explicit act of faith is necessary ; but this is certainly present if the necessary contrition be there. Accordingly St. Alphonsus is quite justified in believing that he can reconcile the divergent views of the theologians by teach ing that formal faith is certainly necessary, but not reflex faith : that is a separate and distinct consideration of the grounds of faith. It is just the same with regard to hope; for if a man receive the Sacrament in a genuine spirit of penance in order to get forgiveness of his sins, he is making an act of hope explicite (though not yet reflexe, still exerdte) that God will grant him pardon in the Sacrament through the merits of Christ.60 All this, however, holds good only for the faithful who are instructed in the things necessary for salvation. Our faith presents to our consideration many motives for contrition, which, as has been shown above, are reduced to two by the Council of Trent : fear of punishment and hatefulness of sin. This hatefulness may have many forms : the general mal ice which belongs to every sin (in so far as it is an injury to God our highest good, and rebellion against Him, or ingratitude to God our Father and Benefactor, or infamous unfaithfulness to Jesus our loving Redeemer), or the particular malice which is proper to each sin, since every sin has its own peculiar wicked ness and is the opposite to some special virtue. A further mo tive is found in the sufferings and death of Christ, which may 60 S. Alph. I. c. n. 439; Renter, Theol. Mor. p. IT. n. 36 et p. IV. n. 247. THE NECESSARY QUALITIES OF CONTRITION 108 be considered a motive of caritas, and the loathsome state of the soul when deprived of sanctifying grace. Among the punishments which excite us to salutary contri tion are first of all the fire of hell, and then purgatory. All these motives may be called eternal; the pains of purga tory may be numbered among the eternal motives because they begin only when a man has passed from this life into eternity. It is to be observed that any one of these motives is sufficient to awaken in us true contrition; nor is it necessary that we should choose a motive with which we made acquaintance first by revelation; we know many of these motives as well by rea son as by faith; we must only take care that the motive which impels us to sorrow appeals to us not merely from the point of view of reason, but as proposed by faith. If, however, one is moved to contrition by a particular motive, namely, the pecul iar malice of some sin even when this malice is made known to us by faith, it is better to add a universal motive either of fear or of tho malice residing in all sin, so that the sorrow may not be insufficient or doubtful for any sin which, having escaped observation, was not repented of. The sorrow which comes from the thought of the temporal sufferings of this life may be regarded as supernatural if these sufferings are looked upon as inflicted by God, as being signs of His anger, and as a sort of foretaste of His eternal punishments if we do not amend. Hence the sorrow which comes from the thought of earthly pains cannot be set down at once and abso lutely as supernatural sorrow; the supernatural aspect must be kept in view, and then the sorrow may be regarded as super natural and sufficient for approaching the Sacrament. Not only reason, but faith also, teaches us that^in God's providence sin has many evil consequences, and that on account of sin God strikes mankind with pains and calamities both private and public. Moreover, the Council of Trent enumerates among the motives of attrition "the fear of hell and of punishment/' and in the 104 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE punishment we are to understand the pains of this life, for the Council mentions as an example the Ninivites who repented of their sins, moved by fear of the destruction of their city, which had been prophesied by Jonas, unless they did penance ; nor are the Ninivites the only instance where God has threatened tem poral punishment in order to frighten sinners and move them to penance. Not all theologians, however, admit temporal punish ments as motives of supernatural sorrow (among them Vasquez and Toletus) ; they try to weaken the argument drawn from the Council of Trent by asserting that the Council does not speak of two motives, which apart from one another can give rise to suffi cient contrition, but that the words are to be taken conjunc tively, so that the fear of earthly punishments must be joined to fear of the pains of hell, since the latter only are made known to us by faith. Our proof is in no way invalidated by this argu ment; besides, many theologians, and those the most famous, stand by the first view, so that it may be considered as the senten- tia communis. The words of one of them, the eminent Suarez, may be quoted here. He writes : 61 " Hence I infer that such sorrow [as is required for the valid reception of the Sacrament of Penance] must proceed from a divine and supernatural mo tive. That a temporal and human sorrow is not sufficient is plain from the words of the Council of Trent, and the reason is not to be misunderstood, for such a motive does not deprive the will of the affection towards sin." And in another place he writes: "Vega (1. 13 in Trid. c. 14) concedes that sorrow based on the fear of other punishment apart from hell-fire is sufficient for attrition. This view is correct if we suppose that the fear is not merely human and natural. Granted that the pains be only temporal, if they are considered as inflicted by God, as pro claiming God's anger, as being a foretaste in some way of the 61 De Poenit. Disp. 20, Sect. 2, n. 10. Cf. Lugo, De Poenit. Disp. 5, n. 137; S. Alph. L. VI. n. 443; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I. n. 105- 110. THE NECESSARY QUALITIES OF CONTRITION 105 divine punishments in the next life if we do not reform, they can move us to a supernatural sorrow which may fairly be classed with the sorrow which is based on the fear of hell; thus we ex ercise the virtue of Christian hope when we look to God for temporal benefits in so far as they affect in any way our eternal life or fall under the special and supernatural providence of God." Since, however, the negative proposition denying the efficacy of sorrow springing from fear of earthly punishments for recep tion of the Sacrament is the safer one and is not altogether im probable, it is the view which must be adopted in practice ; so a penitent should not confine himself to the thought of the tem poral penalties, but use it to proceed to the consideration of the divine justice as revealed in eternal penalties, "for," as Lugo expresses it, " this consideration will create the fear of God, who can inflict both one and the other penalty." This last reflection will certainly move him to a determined resolution to avoid sin as the greatest of evils, and to avoid it even if that involves other suffering. If, however, a man dwell on the thought of the suffer ing which his sins have drawn upon him, or on the suffering which usually follows in the train of sin, he will not necessarily be induced thereby to resolve steadfastly to shun sin more than any other evil ; for it is possible that the avoiding of sin may involve him in greater misfortunes in this life than those which would come from committing the sin; and it is impossible that the fear of a less evil will effectually nerve a man to endure the worse evil. Nevertheless the sorrow and purpose of amend ment, if they are to be of any use for justification, must be such as to determine the man implicite to endure all the evils of this life rather than commit sin; and though the penitent is not obliged to reflect explicite on the matter, yet the motive of his sorrow and amendment must be so powerful that, as long as this motive is present, it would compel him to choose any suffer ing rather than sin. Finally, it may be mentioned that the con- 106 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE sideration of the temporal suffering is a powerful weapon in the hands of the confessor to move an obstinate and unrepentant sinner to contrition, and thence to lead him to higher and safer motives.62 3. The sorrow must be universal (universalis), i.e. it must extend to all past sins, at least to those which are mortal. No single mortal sin can be forgiven unless it is repented of, nor without other mortal sins of which one has been guilty being forgiven, for none can be forgiven without sanctifying grace; but sanctifying grace is incompatible with mortal sin, for it is impossible that any one should be at the same time a child of God and the slave of the devil, worthy of everlasting reward and deserving eternal punishment; because "there .is no condemna tion to them that are in Christ Jesus " (Rom. viii. 1). Hence it is promised in Holy Scripture : " If the wicked do penance for all the sins which he hath committed, and keep all My command ments, . . . living he shall live";63 and the second Lateran Council says, that a repentance would evidently be useless in which a man left out several sins and repented only of one; for it is written : " Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all." He who is attached to one sin shall no more cross the threshold of eternal life than one who is addicted to all possible sins.64 There are only two ways of attaining universal contrition ; one way is to apply special motives of sorrow to each particular sin, the other is to repent of all sins, both the known and the un known, through a universal motive. This universality does not require that one should reflect on all his sins so as to elicit an 62 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Tract. V. (Sacr. Poenit.) Sect. II. § 2, n. 287; Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. III. art. 2, n. 179; Scavini, 1. c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. 1 ; Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. Tract. De Sacram. Poenit. n. 452, Q. VII; Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. 3, cp. 3, § 1, n. 2. 68 Ezechiel xviii. 21. 64 9 THE NECESSARY QUALITIES OF CONTRITION 107 act of contrition for each particular sin; this is necessary only if a man confines himself to those motives which of their own nature Jo not apply to all mortal sins. In practice, however, it is strongly recommended to base the sorrow on universal motives. If, then, a man is sorry for his sins, his mortal sins at least, from a universal motive, and afterwards recalls other sins, he may confess them along with the rest and receive absolution for them without having to make a new act of contrition; this fresh act would be required if his repentance had proceeded from motives peculiar to each sin. Besides there arises at the fresh recollections of his other sins in a repentant sinner a renewal of his sorrow; this renewal is useful, for it insures a more perfect preparation, but it is not necessary. We must distinguish between the universality of the sorrow and the universality of the purpose of amendment. The sorrow is general when it extends to all sins committed, at least to those which are mortal ; the resolution, however, must be to avoid all mortal sins whether they have been committed or not. If a penitent has only venial sins to confess, the sorrow need not be universal ; it must have, however, the other properties.65 Since venial sin may coexist in the soul along with sanctifying grace, the love of God is not lost, and since one venial sin may be forgiven apart from others, it is enough in preparing for con fession to make an act of sorrow for one or other of the venial sins. Of course in such a case only those sins are forgiven which are repented of ; nor is it incompatible with the essence of venial sin that a man should be really sorry for one, especially if it be peculiarly vile, without being sorry for the rest. Still, the penitent should exert himself to be sorry for all the venial sins of which he accuses himself. It is no sin to confess venial sins for which one is not sorry, so long as materia suffi- 65 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 449, Dub. 2; Balleriiii, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I. De dolore venialiam, n. 96-105. 108 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE ciens for which there is actual sorrow is offered to the power of the keys. It may be assumed that the penitent, confessing venial sins for which he is not sorry, does not care to be absolved from them; from these the confessor does not intend to absolve. Reasons may exist for confessing venial sins for which there is no real sorrow, e.g. in order to practice humility, to be better known and guided by one's confessor, etc.66 4. The sorrow must be a sorrow surpassing all other sorrow (sovereign, supreme) which shrinks from past sin as a greater evil than any in the world, so that a man is prepared to forego every good and suffer any evil rather than fall into sin again. This sorrow must be supreme appretiative. Yet it is not required that the sensible feeling of pain should be infinitely great or sur- 66 Suarez (De Poenit. Disp. 20, Sect. 6, n. 7) and Lugo (Disp. 14, 11. 48) teach clearly that a penitent who confesses (venial) sins for which there is no sorrow, along with others without indicating the known defect of sorrow, would sin venially by mixing up proper and improper matter. Their view, however, is singular and is combated by other theologians. In particular Mazzotta (1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. § 2, v. f.) gives the correct solution to the objection that to confess venial sins for which there is no sorrow, is a lie and a nullifying ot the Sacrament, because the act of confessing these sins is exercite a declaration of sorrow for them. He replies that, even granting the objection, it is in any case a lie in a matter of less moment, and so at the most a venial sin, whence there can be no nullifying of the Sacrament. He denies also that such confession is a lie, for, in accordance with the feeling and practice of the faithful, the penitent by such confession of venial sins states exercite that he is sorry for some of them and wishes to be absolved; with regard to the rest he reveals them for his greater humiliation and shame, or in order to disclose the state of his soul, just as he may also reveal his evil inclinations and irregular desires, though they are not sins. Even when a penitent is sorry only for the greater sins, and yet says at the end of his confession, " For these and all my other sins I am sorry," he tells no lie, for these words have no other meaning in their ordinary acceptance than this, that he is sorry for all the sins from which he can and wants to be absolved. It is just the same when a man confesses many venial sins and is sorry only on account of their great num ber, for he can easily see a peculiar malice in the habit of committing such venial sins, and on that account can more easily excite himself to sorrow for them. Mazzotta, 1. c. ; Lugo and Suarez, 1. c. ; Stotz, Trib. Poenit. Lib. I. Pars II. Q. I. art. 4, n. 20; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 290, 291. THE NECESSARY DUALITIES OF CONTRITION 109 passing all other pain ; nor is it necessary that the heart should feel more keenly, or be more disturbed, or be more cast down than it would be by some earthly suffering or loss which should appeal more immediately to the sensitive faculties. Thus a man may experience a more intense and lively sorrow for temporal losses, such as the death of a dear friend or relation, and yet his contrition may be appreciatively much greater. Of this he would give ample proof if he were disposed to avoid sin, even though the sin could make good his losses. Hence it is not by the acuteness of the sensible suffering that sorrow for sin must surpass other pain, but by the displeasure at past sin and the determination of the will to endure all kinds of suffering and every temporal calamity and evil rather than consent to a single mortal sin. The sorrow for sin must therefore be appreciatively sovereign, not necessarily intensively so. The intensity makes no change whatever in the substance of an act. Though con trition is usually the more perfect the more intense it is, yet the intensity ought not to be aimed at, for it would only prepare the way for scruples ; moreover, there is no proof that such intensity is necessary.67 Though the penitent must have a greater horror of sin than of any other evil, it is not necessary that he should make a deliberate comparison of it with other evils, and make a vivid picture of each particular misfortune, putting to himself the question whether he is ready to endure it in preference to com mitting sin. Indeed such a course would be highly imprudent and dangerous and likely to destroy the real contrition and purpose of amendment which he had, as well as to excite an inclination for the sin which he detested. Hence when such comparisons obtrude themselves on the mind of the penitent, he should positively reject them and cling to the absolute and unconditional general resolution of never sinning again, helping 67 Cf . S. Thorn. Suppl. Q. 3, art. 1 ; Stotz, Tribunal Poenit. 1. c. art. IV. n. 16, 17; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 110. 110 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE himself by the reflection that God's grace will never be wanting at the right moment, and resolving with the help of that grace never more to sin.68 The question whether the sorrow can ever be excessive is already answered from the foregoing. The sorrow which is of the essence of contrition, i.e. displeasure at our past sins in so far as they are an injury to God, can never be excessive; the greater our love, the greater must be our displeasure, and love cannot be too great. As to the sensible feeling of sorrow which is not at all necessary for true contrition, this should never be carried so far as to interfere with the duty of self-preservation, though as a matter of course there is little occasion to fear that sensible sorrow will go so far. For the sensible sorrow over a spiritual evil is always somewhat remote and cannot easily be so acute as direct physical suffering or as the pain which comes from a misfortune appealing directly to the senses.69 As in contrition there is no definite intensity required, nei ther is any certain duration ; for a man may in one moment elicit an act of perfect or imperfect contrition; it may be quite sud denly aroused by divine grace, as in the case of David when he exclaimed in his sorrow, (il have sinned against the Lord," or as in the case of St. Peter, who at one glance of Jesus was melted into bitter tears. The moment contrition becomes actual it is sufficient for absolution. In practice, however, the faithful should be urged to spend some time before confession in rousing a genuine sorrow that will answer all demands, by re flecting with the help of God's grace on the nature of sin and its consequences; moreover, they should be cautioned not to be satisfied with a mechanical repetition of an act of contrition, 68 S. Thorn. Quodlib. 1, art. 9 (non modo imprudentice sed stultitice eum morcm arguit) ; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 433 ; Stotz, 1. c. ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 116 s. 69 Cf. S. Thorn. Suppl. Q. 3, art. 2 ; Martin, Lehrbuch der kath. Moral. § 243. RELATION OF CONTRITION TO THE SACRAMENT 111 otherwise the sorrow may be wanting, or at its best be very weak. Yet sorrow is of the highest importance because it is the most essential of the actus poenitentis, the very soul of con fession.70 15. The Relation of Contrition to the Sacrament. Finally, the sorrow must be sacramental, i.e. in connection with the Sacrament of Penance. For instance, in order that attrition along with the Sacrament may be able to restore a man to sanctifying grace, it must be joined with at least the implicit intention of receiving the Sacrament, and coexist virtually with the absolution. A man who in preparing for confession bewails the sins which he has discovered in examining his conscience, makes an act of contrition ex intentions implicita of receiving the Sacrament. If, however, his sorrow is expressed without any intention of receiv ing the Sacrament or without any thought of confession, he must renew his act of sorrow in order to be sure of receiving absolution validly, unless he afterwards decides to go to con fession in consequence of the still virtually enduring contrition, so that his confession proceeds from his sorrow. Hence the fol lowing conclusions are drawn : — I. An act of contrition made without reference to the receiving of absolution makes the validity of the absolution doubtful. II. It is not necessary, however, that the penitent should make the act of contrition in consequence of his resolution to go to confession. This is the usual practice, it is true, and certainly a very good one, but it is enough if by his contrition he be moved to make his confession, and if he thus unite his sorrow, still per severing, with the sacramental act. It is also sufficient if the 70 Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I. n. Ill ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Tract. V. Sacr. Poen. Sect. II. cp. I. § 2, n. 285, 3. On the subject of the dolor quo non doleas see Ballerini, 1. c. n. 114 s. 112 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE penitent makes an act of sorrow in the interval between the confession of his sins and the giving of the absolution.71 The reason for making these demands upon the penitent is that the acts of the penitent are not only an interior preparation for, but they are the materia ex qua of, the Sacrament. The sorrow, therefore, must be brought into relation to the Sacra ment; and since this doctrine is probable and is the common teaching, this relation must be established in practice at least ante factum, i.e. the confessor must before giving absolution take care that the penitent makes his act of sorrow with a view to the Sacrament. Hence the question amounts really to this : What relation is demanded between the act of sorrow and the Sacrament? not whether such a relation be necessary; for, on the one hand, it cannot be defended with any probability that such relation is unnecessary, and, on the other hand, it is not in accordance with either truth or prudence that the penitent, before making the act of contrition, should establish its relation to the confession or be obliged to have the intention of receiving the Sacrament. Some sort of bond, however, must exist between the contrition and the Sacrament. It is false to infer from the Catholic teach ing of the Council of Trent that the eliciting of the act of sorrow or dolor in fieri, as it is called, is the materia proxima of the Sac rament; it is rather the sorrow already elicited or the dolor in facto esse, which is the matter of the Sacrament; it is not in or by itself proxima materia: it becomes so by means of the con fession and in union with the confession. That sorrow is suffi cient which coexists in any way with the will of receiving the Sacrament. In other words, the sorrow must inform the con fession, i.e. make the accusation a penitent or sorrowful con- 71 This is in accordance with the Roman Ritual, which, Tit. TIT. cp. I (Ordo rniuistrandi Sacr. Poenit. n. 17), says : " After the confessor has heard the confession ... he should try by earnest exhortation to move the peni tent to contrition." RELATION OF CONTRITION TO THE SACRAMENT 113 fession, and apt to effect a reconciliation with God. If then the sorrow coexists in any way with the confession and is referred to it, that sorrow constitutes proxime the matter of the Sacra ment and there is no necessity for the penitent to have the in tention of confessing before making the act of contrition. In a similar way water is the matter of Baptism; it is not necessary that the water should be procured with the intention of con ferring the Sacrament; it is quite enough to take the water which comes to hand and to apply it to the sacramental use. Now there can be no doubt that the sorrow also, though not elicited with a view to the Sacrament, can remain present in some way in the soul, and while so present may later on be brought into contact with and applied to ^the Sacrament. A man, for instance, who under the influence of his contrition seeks an opportunity of going to confession, or makes use of the opportunity of going which presents itself, has certainly not lost his contrition; he has it rather in greater abundance, though he reflects no more on his sorrow, nor even retains any certain recollection of it afterwards. Lacroix has no sufficient reason for demanding that sorrow must be aroused with the view of going to confession, saying that otherwise the sorrow would not be a sacramental act, just as the pouring of water made without the intention of baptizing, though referred immediately afterwards to the bap tismal act and the form added, is not a sacramental function. The comparison, we answer, is not to the point, for the sorrow is not in et per se materia proximo, as is the pouring of the water in Baptism. If, however, a man poured out the water with some other intention, and then still in the act of pouring formed the in tention of baptizing, the Baptism would be valid. The same argument holds for penance; hence that sorrow is sufficient which coexists in any way with the wish to receive the Sacra ment. In the case quoted above where the penitent first confesses his 114 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE sins and then makes his act of sorrow before receiving the Sac rament, or when he is moved to contrition by the words of his confessor, a difficulty may arise, since the confession must be a sorrowful one. Such an enumeration of the sins cannot, of course, be considered as informed by sorrowr; the humble de mand for absolution, however, takes up the accusation again and perfects it ; and makes it materia proxima of the Sacrament. If, on the contrary, the sorrow has been elicited with no idea at all of confessing the sin, there is reason for doubting whether an act so completely independent of the confession will become materia of the Sacrament. Absolution cannot be demanded in face of the probability of such an essential defect; yet one can hardly acquire sufficient certainty of the existence of such de fect to make the repetition of the confession obligatory.72 III. The sorrow must coexist at least virtually with the ab solution if it is to be sacramental. This virtual coexistence is secured if the sorrow is excited immediately before the accusa tion or the absolution, or even one, two, or four hours before confession; and St. Alphonsus admits that real sorrow may last one or two days and still be sufficient for absolution, when it comes from the desire of being reconciled with God, or when it urges a man to go to confession in order to avoid the sins along with the occasion of them. On the other hand, a sorrow re moved by so long an interval would not be sufficient for valid absolution if the confession were made out of mere devotion, or in fulfilment of a vow, or for some similar reason. In these latter instances one or two hours is the widest limit which could be assigned for the virtual duration of the contrition, Hence we must condemn the teaching of some moralists that the act 72 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 447; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I: an dolor ordinandus ad sacramentum, n. 120-129 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sect. IT. cp. I. § 1, n.280; Gury-Ballerini, Compend. Theol. Mor. Tract, de Sacr. Pcen. art. I. § 1, n. 447, Q. 7; Suarez, De Pcenit. Disp. 20, Sect. 4, n. 29; Lugo, De Pcenit. Disp. 14, n. 37-40; Vindic. Alph. p. 935, n. 108 et pp. 411-418 ; Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. III. art. II. n. 179, Q. 4. DELATION OF CONTRITION TO THE SACRAMENT 115 of sorrow endures over an unlimited time, and that it is quite sufficient if it is not retracted in the interval. Of course the act of contrition loses completely all its value for absolution by any retraction; and sorrow is retracted expressly by any new com placency in the sin or by any fresh mortal sin. The reasons for the doctrine just given have already been laid down in the preceding paragraphs on the relation between con trition and absolution. The theologians fall back in particular on the analogy between the civil and sacramental tribunals. As in a civil process some time may elapse between the hearing of the case and the passing of the sentence without invalidating the sentence, so some interval may elapse between the sorrow and the absolution by which sentence is pronounced ; this delay, however, must not be too long.73 In practice the priest must teach the faithful and insist on their renewing the act of sorrow immediately before confession, if it is some time since they made it, and also on a due amount of time being given to eliciting contrition, since the fruit of the Sacrament is more abundant in proportion to the care taken in preparing for it. In the case, however, where confession has been made with genuine sorrow but without the necessary reference to the Sac rament, the penitent should not be obliged to repeat the confes sion, for the other view with regard to the sorrow, that it is not materia sacramenti, but only a disposition on the part of the penitent, is not altogether without probability; besides it is scarcely probable that the former act of contrition has not been renewed when the man intended to confess, and that it has no sufficient coexistence with the confession, or at least with the intention to confess. Only when there is danger of death or any risk of the penitent dying before receiving absolution again, the safer course, as far as possible, should be adopted; ™ S. Alpli. Lib. VT. n. 440 ; II. Ap. TraeL 10, n. 20. 116 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE for on such important occasions prudence counsels us to guard against even slight doubts, so as not to jeopardize our eternal salvation. It is certain, as we remarked above, that the act of contrition is retracted by a fresh mortal sin, and its effect, in consequence, no longer endures. It is not so easy to settle the question, with regard to venial sins, as to whether the sorrow for venial sin based on a universal motive is revoked by a fresh venial sin, or whether the sorrow continues. If it is conceded that the sorrow is re voked, scruples may easily arise if the sorrow has not been renewed immediately before confession. This practice is very good; but not necessary, if the fresh venial sin is less grievous than those which the penitent intended to confess when he made his act of sorrow.74 There is still another question to consider. An act of contri tion is made, extending to all past sins, those which are forgotten as well as those which are remembered; must this be renewed if the penitent afterwards confesses the forgotten sins and de sires a second absolution ? A renewal of the sorrow in this case does not seem necessary, provided that the sorrow in the first confession extended to all past sins, even those which by chance had escaped the memory ; for in this case the process was not objectively complete. The sorrow and the implicit intention of receiving absolution were applied to all sins, even those inculpably forgotten; and as the renewal of the sorrow would not be at all necessary if the peni tent, after making an act of contrition on universal grounds, recalls just before the absolution some sins forgotten and con fesses them before the absolution is pronounced, so it is not necessary in the case mentioned, since it is much the same whether one receives many particular absolutions or a general one embracing all the sins. Such is the view of the greater number 74 Cf . Tamburini, Method, conf . Lib. I. cp. 3, § 4 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sect. IT. cp. T. § 1, n. 281. RELATION OF CONTRITION TO THE SACRAMENT 117 of the moralists. Lugo, St. Alphonsus, and Reuter may be men tioned particularly as favoring it ; St. Alphonsus calls this teach ing communis, Roncaglia moraliter certa, Sporer, Elbel, and many others probabilissima ; it has been declared even indubitata apud omnes; pro ea stat, says Lugo, communis praxis. If in this case one or two confessors perhaps insist on the renewal of the sor row, the greater number agree in acting differently or in suggest ing it merely as a piece of advice. The champions of the other view urge that the case is closed by the first absolution ; if then absolution is to be given again, a new materia proximo, is required, and even if the sorrow continue, it has no relation to the second absolution. It is easily seen that this is not a strong reason.75 Yet though the renewal of the sor row be not necessary for the validity of the absolution, it is ad visable to make again the act of sorrow, which is easy to do and certainly increases the grace. The confessor deals prudently with a penitent under such circumstances when he requires him to make a short renewal of his act of contrition.76 The doctrine just developed is not only adopted ex communi sententia in the case more or less frequent, where a mortal sin which had been forgotten is confessed immediately after or very soon after absolution, but also in two other cases. For instance, a penitent in immediate danger of death must be absolved after one or two sins have been confessed ; after this, if he be still alive, the confession is continued and completed. The 75 Cf. Gury-Ballerini, II. 1. c. n. 448; Bailer. Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I. n. 129 ss. ; Aertnys, 1. c. ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 282 ; Mazzotta, 1. c.. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. q. I. § 3. 76 Miiller (1. c. Lib. III. Tract. II. § 116) founds his advice as to renew ing the act of sorrow on the rule in praxi tutius est sequendum, since it is a case of securing the validity of a Sacrament. He is in error, however, for the other (affirmative) opinion hardly deserves to be considered probable on account of the very weak grounds on which it rests. We must at the same time remember that the penitent in this case is certainly justified, and that he has fulfilled the divine precept of demanding direct absolution for all his sins when he confesses his sins in accordance with the first opinion. 118 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE other example is when a penitent (a very rare case) is absolved by his superior from the reserved sins only, and from the remain ing sins by another confessor.77 The result of this doctrine ought not to be, however, that con fessors and penitents become less solicitous about contrition for sins already remitted by the Sacrament. It may, however, as Ballerini remarks, be very useful in quieting scruples, especially of those who accuse themselves of venial sins and in addition tell some mortal sin already confessed and absolved ; for if there is little ground for doubting the sorrow for past mortal sins in a penitent who has usually only venial sins to confess, and shows by his constant victories over temptation his aversion to mortal sin, yet certain anxious penitents are frequently troubled with scruples about their want of contrition, especially if they happen to hear a preacher who, with a zeal sometimes devoid of pru dence, condemns the repeated confession of past sins made without true contrition. Such scruples may be overcome by various means, but especially by the doctrine just given.78 To conclude with a few practical questions : - 1. How must the confessor deal with a penitent who thinks he has only very slight contrition? He must first of all not be too hasty in deciding that this penitent is indisposed and with out the necessary contrition ; there are men whose hearts are so 77 Compare § 42 ; Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. This doctrine is pushed still farther, and it is taught that a man may be absolved several times from sins, even though he has confessed them or other sins two or three times without renewing his contrition, so long as he has not revoked the contri tion, and so long as it remains habitual and virtual. This is not to be understood as though the absolution may be given after the lapse of weeks and months on the strength of a single act of contrition ; this would be a very doubtful proceeding, since the virtual continuance of the sorrow which is required is not to be understood of the mere habitual disposition of the heart, but only of the virtual existence which may still intentionally unite the sorrow with the absolution. Cf. Tamburini, 1. c. Lib. I. cp. 2, § 5; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 282. 78 Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. n. -117, Nota a. RELATION OF CONTRITION TO THE SACRAMENT 119 hard and inaccessible to sensible impressions that it is only with difficulty and at rare intervals that they are moved to a sensible sorrow, and such are easily inclined to think that they have not the proper dispositions. The confessor must remember that the feeling of sorrow is not at all required, but that a real grief over the past life and an earnest desire to amend are sufficient; he must satisfy himself that these dispositions are present and can not demand more. He may, moreover, reasonably assume the presence of these dispositions in the penitent if the latter be will ing to listen to warning and instruction, if he has at any time really endeavored to amend, if he is ready to perform the pen ance imposed, and to carry out other prescriptions of a like nature.79 2. When with regard to former confessions the priest wishes to ascertain whether the penitent has had real sorrow, the fol lowing points may serve as indications : — (a) If the penitent has made use of the means suggested to him for overcoming the sin. (&) If he has avoided at least the proximate occasions of sin. (c) If the number of sins has become less. (d) If the penitent is convinced that he had real sorrow and purpose of amendment; for it is a first principle in the Sacra ment of Penance that the penitent's word is to be taken, since he is there his own accuser and witness.80 The priest must act here with great prudence so as not to frighten away the penitent, and at the same time not to indulge in an indiscreet leniency by which he would himself commit sin and involve both the penitent and himself in ruin. 3. It is not easy for the confessor to discover when the peni tent has not real contrition; the following directions, which Cardinal Denoff in his pastoral brought to the notice of all the confessors of his diocese, may be of use : — 79 Scavini, 1. c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. I. Adnot. 80 Cf. Stotz, 1. c. art. VI. n. 114. 120 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE (a) If the penitent approaches with a proud bearing as though despising the minister of Christ. (6) If he answers with impatience and anger the questions which the confessor is bound to put. (c) If in the course of his confession he constantly makes excuses and accuses others more than himself. (d) If he mentions the gravest sins as though they were ordinary occurrences. (e) If it is evident that he is trying to conceal a mortal sin which the confessor in the course of his examination has de tected. (/) If he refuses to accept a penance proportioned to the number and gravity of his sins, and given with all consideration for his circumstances. (g) If he is unwilling to employ the necessary means to reform. (h) If, finally, he belongs to the number of those unhappy sinners who seek ignorant or easy-going confessors, with a view of getting absolution only, without any intention of reforming.81 4. If the priest has to deal with an obstinate sinner, he must discreetly unite mildness and severity, but above all pray to God for him, since every good gift comes frcm the Father of light. He may picture to him God's great mercy and the love of Jesus to give him courage ; or he may try to soften the hard ness of his heart by reminding him of God's justice (cf. S. Alph. Praxis Confessar. cp. I). 81 Cf. Scavini, 1. c. Adnotat. n. 191, and Trucchi, Metodo practice per la facile e sicura amministrat. del Sacr. della Penit. CHAPTER II THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT 16. Necessity and Nature of the Purpose of Amendment. ACCORDING to the decision of the Council of Trent, as we have seen above, the resolution to amend as well as contrition is re quired for the valid reception of the Sacrament. With a true sorrow for sin is always conjoined the resolution to avoid it, so that we may say with regard to past sins sorrow means grief and horror, with regard to the future it means the resolution to amend. For instance, a man who hates the sin he has com mitted, because it is sin and in so far as it is sin, i.e. because it is an offense against God and the greatest misfortune which can befall a mortal, naturally extends that sorrow to everything which involves sin, and so to the sins of the future, since they offer the same grounds for hatred as the rest. Now amendment is effected by the deliberate intention never to sin again for the future. A distinction is drawn be tween the express or formal resolve (propositum explicitum sen formale), as when, for example, a man thinks upon his future life and resolves to sin no more, and the implicit resolve con tained in the sorrow (propositum implicitum sen virtuale) ; the latter is present when a man, without thinking upon his future life, repents of his sin in such wise that, if asked whether he in tends for the future to avoid sin, he would most certainly answer in the affirmative. It is a disputed point among theologians whether for the validity of confession an express (formal) resolve is necessary or one included in tho act of contrition (a virtual resolve) is 121 122 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE sufficient. Some teach absolutely (very few, however) that an express resolve is necessary, and appeal to the Council of Trent as requiring this condition, since, after defining the act of contrition, it adds the words: Cum proposito non peccandi de ca'tero.1 This argument is successfully invalidated by Cardinal Lugo,2 who, in addition, brings convincing testimony that the very opposite conclusion may be drawn from the teaching of the Council. Since, moreover, as Ballerini shows in his notes on Gury's text, only a very few theologians adopt that view, it Can hardly lay any claim to probability.3 Other theologians teach absolutely that an express purpose of amendment is not necessary if the contrition proceed from a universal motive ; 4 an implicit resolution is sufficient, and Lugo 1 Sess. XIV. cp. IV. 2 De Pcenit. Disp. 14, n. 52 s. 3 Ballerini points out particularly that the older theologians, as Petrus Lombardus, St. Thomas, Blessed Albert, Scotus, Durandus, were quoted without reason as upholders of this view, for, though they insisted on the necessity of some sort of purpose of amendment, they made no distinction between a formal and a virtual purpose. Cf. Bellarmin, De Poenit. Lib. II. cp. 6. Moreover, Suarez, Cajetan, Bonacina, Henriquez, and Gregory of Valentia are wrongly quoted in favor of this view; they taught the very opposite. Cf. Ballerini, Notae, 1. c. ad n. 462. 4 The purpose of amendment must be universal, and, as we shall show later, with a universality distinct from that of the contrition. If the sorrow proceeded from a particular motive wThich nee actu nee virtute extended to the other sins, it is clear that the resolution to amend implied in such sorrow could hardly be universal. If, for example, a man conceived sorrow for the sin of impurity only on account of the peculiar ugliness of that vice, the purpose of amendment contained in such a sorrow would suffice indeed so far as it applied to impurity, but not for other sins, because the motive is a particular one not extending to other sins. If, then, the sorrow is based on some particular motive, an explicit purpose of amendment must be made extending to all sins. If the sorrow proceed from a general motive applicable to all sins (if a man, for example, is sorry for having committed a serious theft because it is a grave offense against God), it is impossible that he should be willing to offend God again by any other grave sin, for in consequence of his act of contrition he hates and detests whatever offends God. Whoever heartily NATURE OF THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT 123 calls this opinion communis inter recentiores. Indeed most of the theologians endorse it. Ballerini cites seventy-three by name, with the passages in which they express their views.5 It is also founded on solid intrinsic grounds, for, according to the doctrine of the Council (loco citato), attrition which excludes the desire of sinning is sufficient for the valid reception of the Sacrament ; but, as we have seen, attrition excludes the desire of sinning, even when there is no formal purpose of amendment, for it detaches the heart of man from sin, and not only from past sin but from all sin.6 Finally, there are theologians who distinguish and say: If a penitent advert to the future, he must make a formal resolution to amend; if, however, as in the case of the dying, no thought of the future occurs to him, a formal resolution is not necessary ; for it is hardly possible that a penitent who is really sorry for his sins and thinks upon the future should fail to make an express and formal resolve to amend. Yet this may very well happen, as Ballerini observes, to pious people, especially to such as are careful to avoid even slight deliberate venial sins, and are accustomed to make acts of sorrow for defects and to start afresh on the right way; for in them the resolution to avoid sin is not made just for the time when they prepare for confes- detests his sins from a universal motive will be slow ever to fall into them again ; for no man will do that which he hates as an offense against God. " But when the Council of Trent speaks of the purpose of amendment, it speaks of it in the same way as of the resolution to go to confession and make satisfaction, and this need not be explicit. As it is sufficient that tfiis resolution be virtual, it is also enough to make a virtual resolution of reforming one's life and sinning no more; it is always a real resolution, though it be only a ' virtual one.' And since eminent authorities interpret the Council of Trent in this manner, we may without misgiving follow their decision." Stotz, 1. c. Lib. T. P. IT. Q. IT. art. ITT. n. 88 ss. 6 Ballerini, Notae ad n. 402, pp. 348-356 (Ed. Romana, 1887), and Opus Theolog. Morale, 1. c. (An sufficiat proposition virtuale), n. 143-155. 6 This is also the doctrine of the Council held at Rome in 1725 under Benedict XIII in the Lateran Basilica. 124 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE sion, but it is rather an enduring habit of mind. Hence it is not matter of surprise that they should not think of renewing and confirming their resolution. Suarez makes this clear when, in speaking of perfect contrition, he asks whether an act of perfect love suffices for justification, or whether also an act of sorrow for sin be necessary; he replies that per se both are required, but that per accidens the act of perfect love suffices, for whoever makes an act of perfect love is undoubtedly restored to grace; but that if a man be conscious of sin, he is in duty bound to reestablish his right relation to God and to make a formal and explicit act of displeasure and hatred with regard to the sin ; to neglect this duty would prove that he had no real love. In a similar way the sinner who mourns for his past sins is naturally prompted to make a resolution of avoiding sin; hence the voluntary neglect of the purpose of amendment renders the act of contrition very suspicious.7 After exposing the three views which have divided theo logians on this point, St. Alphonsus concludes: The last two views are certainly the more probable; but since the first has also a certain probability, it must in practice be followed ante factum. He holds that a penitent would be obliged to repeat his confession if he had confessed in good faith without an ex press purpose of amendment, though with real contrition such as would include a virtual purpose; his argument being that, since the first opinion is sufficiently probable, a penitent who had certainly incurred mortal sin is bound to avow the same in a confession that was certainly and not merely probably valid.8 Now, as we have shown above, the first opinion can hardly lay claim to any probability, though the holy Doctor concedes it as such mainly because he was misled by Lacroix into believing that he had distinguished authorities on his side. 7 Suarez, De Poen. Disp. 20, Sect. 4, n. 33. 8 S. Alph. Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. n. 450. NATURE OF THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT 125 Besides, St. Alphonsus teaches in another part of his Moral Theology (1. c. n. 505) that the penitent should not be obliged to repeat his confession unless there be a moral certainty of its invalidity — a doctrine quite in accordance with the sententia communis and with excellent reason maintained by Lacroix, Gobat, etc., in opposition to Antoine, one of the most conspicu ous rigorists of his time. In the case under consideration it may be decided with moral certainty that a confession made with a virtual purpose of amendment is rather valid than invalid, especially since, ac cording to St. Alphonsus himself, the champions of all these opinions unite in declaring that a confession made without an express resolution of amendment need not be repeated, for they would f certainly have decided for the repetition if they had thought such a confession invalid. Hence theologians deny communissima sententia that a formal purpose of amendment (if the contrition is based on a universal motive) is necessary necessitate sacramenti; they admit that confessions are valid without the express purpose of amendment. Add to this that St. Alphonsus in his Homo Apostolicus taught that confessions made with only a virtual purpose of amendment need not be repeated.9 We conclude with the following principles : - 1. In order to receive the Sacrament validly and to share in 9 The Turin edition of his Moral Theology defends the doctrine held in the present work, and .shows that the holy Doctor was always expending labor on the text of the Moral Theology and correcting it up to the end of his life. Aertnys, moreover, declares (appealing to S. Alph. Theol. Moral. Lib. I. n. 53, Lib. II L n. 700, and Lib. VI. n. 505) that there is no obliga tion of repeating the confession; and Marcus (Institut. Moral. Alphous. P. III. Tract. V. Diss. II. cp. I. art. II. n. 1680) adopts Scavini's view : In praxi no one need be disturbed in this matter, since it can hardly happen that a really contrite penitent will omit the formal purpose of amendment. Miiller (1. c. § 117) requires for the validity of the confession a formal reso lution to amend, and maintains that confessions made without the formal resolution are to be repeated. 126 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE its essential effects, a virtual or implicit purpose of amendment is sufficient if the sorrow proceed from a universal motive. 2. If confession has been made without a formal and express purpose of amendment, there is no obligation to repeat the con fession as though it had been invalid. 3. The faithful should be taught and urged to make a formal resolution of amendment in the course of their preparation for confession. The reason of this last prescription is not so much to be found in any doubt with regard to confessions made without the ex press purpose, of amendment, but to secure a more abundant fruit from the Sacrament. We shall certainly with the grace of God make more earnest endeavors to avoid sin and to reform if we expressly, deliberately, and with all our heart resolve to avoid sin. Indeed, as Lehmkuhl justly observes, apart from the grace of the Sacrament and the instruction and advice of our confessor, the frequent reception of this Sacrament serves to secure us against relapse, for our wills need a frequent stimulus to remain firm in the hatred of sin. Not infrequently one cause of our relapses is a weak purpose of amendment.10 17. Properties of the Purpose of Amendment. The purpose of amendment must have the three following properties: it must be absolute or firm, efficacious, and uni versal. We shall consider these properties in detail. The purpose of amendment must, first of all, be firm, answering to the contrition which detests sin above all other eVils; so that a man under no circumstances, neither through fear, of any evil or love of any good will think of swerving from his resolve. Thus the purpose of amendment is not a velleity, not a mere wish or a vague desire; it must be an absolute, fixed determination never to sin again; otherwise the penitent 10 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 298. Cf. Stotz, 1. c. n. 92. PROPERTIES OF THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT 127 would not really detest sin nor really and thoroughly turn to God. The resolution must then be so fixed that the penitent is re solved to overcome all the difficulties which may oppose its execution. The confessor will prudently refrain from placing before the penitent all the difficulties which will have to be faced in keeping the resolution or from revealing to the penitent all his obligations, if the latter be bona fide ignorant of them; "for," says Suarez, "he might expose the penitent to the obvious danger of making no resolution, but rather of sinning again." It is enough, continues the great theologian, if the confessor pictures to the penitent in general terms the hatefulness of sin, the goodness of God, the danger of eternal damnation, etc., and that the penitent in consequence of the exhortation forms a general resolution never to fall again into mortal sin.11 The advice which Cardinal Cajetan gives to confessors is in much the same strain: They should not, he says, lead their peni tents into temptation by their excessive and imprudent zeal in asking whether they are resolved to avoid sin even at the risk of suffering the greatest misfortunes, loss of goods, of health, or even of life itself; for questions of this kind would prove a snare to many penitents. His office should be rather to persuade them to love God above all things, and in conse quence of this love to repent of their sins and avoid them for the future. In this way he will inflame the hearts of his peni tents, without leading them into danger.12 The celebrated Lugo reminds us of the weakness of the human heart; the confessor is to take this weakness into account in dealing with the penitent, and not put before him singly and explicitly enormous difficulties which he should be ready to overcome rather than commit sin. In another place, treating 11 Suarez, De Pcenit. Disp. 32, Sect. 2, n. 2. 12 Cajetan, Card. Sum. V. Confess, ad 12 qualit. 128 THE EECIPIENT OF PENANCE of penitents given to ambition and sensuality, who have re nounced their sins in confession though without great sorrow, but, conquered by the strength of their passion which they have only resisted feebly, have relapsed easily when occasion offered, he says : " Indeed we do not dare to represent clearly in detail the temptations or occasions of sinning which may occur, in order that the penitent may make his resolutions on each point, for there is good reason to fear that he will fail to retract his former sins even in confuso."13 It is then sufficient per se that the penitent resolve in confuso to sin no more ; a resolution of this kind, however, may be easily defeated by the contemplation of a peculiar difficulty. For this reason the penitent should renew frequently and earnestly his resolution never to sin again; if he do this and also pray, there is reason to hope that he will be victorious in the actual moment of trial. Men of strong will and steadfast heart may put before themselves and contemplate with their eyes open the difficulties in the way of avoiding sin and reforming their lives, and such conduct is helpful in the spiritual struggle, unless the subject be one in which the heart is vehemently carried away or where victory consists in flight. To conjure up diffi culties and to review temptations which might disturb weak minds and lead them into danger 14 serves no good purpose and is not to be recommended. From the foregoing it is abundantly evident : — 1. That the Jansenists and rigorists are wrong in maintain ing that relapse into sin is a sign of a want of purpose. The resolution depends on the present frame of mind which, how ever strong it is, may easily waver. "The fact of a man sinning again does not prevent his former sorrow from having been real ; as a man may be now seated who has been running, 13 Lugo, De Poeiiit. Disp. 7, n. 238. 14 Compare Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Tract. V. Sacr. Poenit, Sect, IT. cp. T. § 3, n. 295. PEOPERTIES OF THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT 129 so a man may fall into sin who has been truly repentant; the nature of a former act is not changed by a subsequent act."15 And the Rituale Romanum 16 directs, as of great utility, to advise those who easily relapse into sin to confess often, once a month, or on certain feasts, and also to communicate; it presumes that such people in spite of their relapses have made good confes sions; otherwise the penitent would be obliged to repeat his confessions as being invalid every time that he relapsed, which would certainly be opposed to the practice and universal belief of the faithful. If, however, a penitent relapse without any effort to overcome himself, it may be taken as a sign that he had no fixed determination, or there is ground for a suspicion, at least, of its absence; any one who is really determined to avoid sin will not easily forget his purpose; he will resist for some time at least, and will fall less easily and less often.17 2. Even if a penitent is conscious of his own weakness and knows that he will relapse in spite of his resolution and in spite of earnest effort, he cannot be considered as giving undoubted signs of weakness of purpose. It is only the rigorists who demand a firm conviction of not falling again. If, however, a penitent is so afraid that he will fall again, or so convinced that he will repeat his sin as to despair of reform ing, he cannot be absolved; not only does he fail in resolution — there is a fair suspicion at least that he has no fixed deter mination — but he distrusts God's grace which is ever at hand, and, as experience proves, is always efficacious in helping men of good will to overcome difficulties and obstacles. Before giving such a penitent absolution he must be taught the fatal error of his ways, moved to sorrow for his despair, for such 15 S. Thomas, III. Q. 84, a. 10 ad 4. Compare S. Bonaventure in IV. Sent. Dist. 14, p. 1, d. 4; S. Alph. Praxis Confess, cp. 1, n. 20; Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 451. 16 Tit. III. cp. I. De Sacr. Poan. n. 19. 17 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 459. 130 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE despair is sinful, and exhorted to great confidence in God's grace. This is the doctrine of St. Alphonsus,18 in which, as he himself confesses, he follows Busenbaum,19 Concina, and Lacroix.20 If, finally, the penitent has misgivings from his previous experience of relapses, but not so strong as to deprive him of all confidence, he is not to be classed at once as indisposed; the confessor must persuade him to make a firm resolution against sin and encourage him to have confidence in God's grace. If he succeed in arousing hope in him, and the penitent promise to have recourse to prayer in temptation, it is better to give absolution at once than to put it off. This class of penitents should be encouraged to confess frequently, for there is reason to hope that they have a fixed determination to improve; there is no presumption for the opposite view, since a strong resolu tion to avoid sin is quite compatible with the fear of a possible relapse.21 Still less would it be a sign of want of the requisite dispositions if the confessor were persuaded that the penitent could hardly be saved from a relapse; this conclusion may be drawn with moral certainty, or, at least, on strong presumption, from the 18 Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Poen. n. 451. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 162. 19 Medulla Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Sacr. Poen. cp. 1. 20 Lib. VT. p. 2, n. 1822. 21 This may be regarded as the communis iheologorum doctrina ; indeed many theologians (St. Alphonsus mentions among others loco citato Lay- rnann, Sporer, Suarez, Henriquez) hold that a penitent who believes (credat) that he will fall again can always and absolutely be considered as being in good disposition. They do not mean by this a despair of reform, but rather a grave fear which may be consistent with a firm hope in the aids of grace and a fixed determination of never sinning. Besides, as Lacroix explains, the phrase si credat must be taken in a mitigated sense and be understood of the misgiving natural to a careful person. It is the duty of the penitent to take courage and free himself from this misgiving. Compare Lacroix, 1. c., and Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. Tract, de Pcen. P. II. cp. I. art. II. n. 461, Nota a, and Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 159 ss. PROPERTIES OF THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT 131 ordinary occurrences of life; hence the necessary disposition on the part of the penitent can always be secured. In practice it is not of infrequent occurrence that a penitent, otherwise of good will, alarmed by the difficulties of some under taking, declares that he cannot avoid a certain sin, or refuses to make a promise for fear of breaking his word, or says he cannot trust himself. This happens in the case of those who are given to some evil habit, as, for instance, taking the name of God in vain, swearing, flying into a rage, etc. Such a penitent must not only be encouraged to trust to the help of divine grace, but be taught that all required of him is to have at the present moment (hie et nunc) the determination not to relapse, that he should not look too far ahead but make his resolution day by day. The confessor must take particular care that the peni tent understands that that only is demanded of him which he freely acknowledges to be within his power. This end is ob tained by suggesting methods to the penitent to be used when he is free from temptation as well as when he is attacked, and by impressing upon him that all demanded of him is to guard against committing sins knowingly and with full advertence.22 The resolution must, moreover, be efficacious, i.e. the penitent must be ready not only to avoid sin, but also to take the neces sary means for avoiding it, especially by avoiding the proximate occasions ; for whoever effectually desires some end must, of ne cessity, as far as lies in him, remove all impediments to it, and employ all the means which will lead to it. Hence theologians teach that the resolution must be efficax affectu; in the case, however, where it is not executione efficax, i.e. where the peni tent fails to accomplish his purpose, it is not reasonable to con clude at once that a real and sufficient resolve was absent, though some presumption against the fixity of the purpose may be entertained. What has been said with respect to the 22 Cf. Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. 132 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE steadfastness of the purpose of amendment may be applied to its efficaciousness, seeing that the two subjects are so intimately connected. Though it is undoubted that for valid confession the purpose of amendment must be fixed and efficacious, yet we are not to understand thereby that a man may never fail in his resolution. It is quite certain that men are so fickle that they will fall away frequently from determined and fixed resolutions, as we see, for instance, in the case of St. Peter, who, as we know, was sincerely pledged not to betray his Lord, and, yet, denied Him soon after, at the mere word of a maid servant. The purpose of amendment, then, is fixed and efficacious when a man is determined really to carry out what he has proposed, though he may afterwards fail through fear of an obstacle or in the stress of temptation; this happens often enough even in the case of those who are aiming at Christian perfection. Hence, for valid reception of the Sacrament, the purpose of amendment is sufficiently efficacious if it keep a man from sin during the time that his resolution lasts.23 In order to be reasonably free from misgivings with regard to his resolution, the penitent should be morally certain that he desires to avoid sin at any cost for the rest of his life, despite all grounds he may have for believing that his resolution may become weak in course of time. Finally, the resolution must be universal, i.e. it must extend to all mortal sins at least, not only those which have been com mitted, but also those which are possible. Here lies the dis tinction between the universality of the contrition and that of the purpose of amendment; for while the sorrow is universal which includes all the sins that have been committed, the reso lution, in order to be valid, must embrace all possible mortal sins. If there remained but a single mortal sin which the peni tent was unwilling to shun, his resolution would be vain and 28 Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. Lib. VI. n. 451 ; Stotz, 1. c. Lib. T. P. II. Q, IT. art. V. n. 102 s. AMENDMENT WITH REGARD TO VENIAL SIN 133 useless even with regard to his other sins, because it could not be founded on a universal motive, such as hatred of sin consid ered in the light of an offense against God. A resolution which is based on this motive extends to all mortal sins without re serve, because they are all an offense against God; and if but one be excepted, such a motive could not have influenced the purpose of amendment, which in consequence cannot be real and genuine.24 18. The Purpose of Amendment with regard to Venial Sin. The purpose of amendment, as we have said, must extend at least to all mortal sins. With regard to venial sins it must be constant and efficacious, but not necessarily universal; for, since venial sin is consistent with the friendship and grace of God in the soul, one is not obliged to resolve on avoiding all of them : indeed no one sine speciali privilegio gratice can avoid all venial sins, and no one is called upon to resolve to accomplish the impossible; still there is an obligation to resolve to avoid them as much as possible, or at least to diminish their number. The following points will present the matter in detail : — 1. It is sufficient with respect to any venial sin to make an act of contrition and a purpose of amendment, even though these acts do not extend to all lighter venial sins of the same species ; for the greater the sin the greater is the offense against God and the punishment due to it ; and a man may well shrink from displeasing God beyond a certain point, though below that point he may be careless. 2. It is sufficient to make an act of sorrow and purpose of amendment with regard to some particular species of sin, or some vice, or some sins opposed to a particular virtue, especially if the penitent keeps before his mind those particular sins which have been committed with greater malice and deliberation.25 24 Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 4; S. Alph. 1. c. Lib. VI. n. 451. 25 The reason for this doctrine is very clearly put in Lugo's Responsa 134 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE 3. With much more reason may it be considered sufficient to make acts of sorrow and purpose of amendment for all perfectly deliberate venial sins on account of their greater guilt; such a universal sorrow must, however, include a fixed and efficacious resolution of amendment. With respect to venial sins which Moralia, Lib. I. dub. 29, where he answers the difficulty how a man may make an efficacious and sufficient act of contrition with respect to one species of sin, excluding other species. The learned author remarks : — 1. That if a man repent of his sins from a universal and general motive, he embraces of necessity all his sins in this act of contrition. If, then, such a motive excite a man to repentance, he is of necessity moved to shun all sin. 2. Such motives, however, — and this is a point well worth noticing,— may excite contrition in a more restricted manner; for instance, the graver the sins, the more they displease and offend God ; hence a man may be led to hate this excess of wickedness. In this case " the motive of the contrition is not the offense of God as such, but that gravity of the offense which is not found in other venial sins." 3. All this being now assumed, the difficulty remains whether a peni tent, for instance, who is contrite for slight lies, must at least virtually repent of other venial sins of another species, which are graver than, or at least as grave as, that class of lies, or whether he can have contrition suffi cient for sacramental absolution for those lies without repenting virtually of venial sins of another species as great or greater. This may be the case if the formal motive of sorrow is a particular one ; for instance here the hatred which God, the Eternal Truth, must have for lies. It does not hold if the sorrow proceed from the motive of penance, for we could not hate anything as offensive to God and at the same time be ready to offend Him in other matters. The same holds true if we are really sorry for sin through fear of hell-fire. " There are occasions, however, when the motive of sorrow may be particular — when, for instance, a man is sorry for the irreverence done to God because it is an injury to His divine Majesty (such a motive is called a motive of religion) ; he is not obliged even virtually to repent of graver or equally grave venial sins of another species, except they involve an irrever ence equally incompatible with the virtue of religion." Lugo also shows that a similar case happens when a man repents of some particular species of sin, e.g. of lying, not on account of the disobedi ence to God which every sin includes, but on account of the disobedience involved in transgressing a special command of God, or rather on account of the opposition of these sins to the special law of God which forbids us to violate the truth. Moreover, he adds that the same holds true in regard of the special temporal sufferings which God inflicts for particular species of sins, e.g. disrespect to parents. AMENDMENT WITH REGARD TO VENIAL SIN 135 are not quite deliberate, the resolution to take more pains to avoid them is a sufficient purpose of amendment. In order that such a universal resolve may be of avail, a particular spe cies of sin should be singled out and made the special object of contrition and amendment. 4. Moreover, it is the general teaching of moralists that it is enough to make acts of sorrow and amendment with regard to the frequency of venial sin if the penitent really resolve to reduce the number; it is necessary here, however, to guard against a very lax practice. Though such doctrine is possible in theory and such a purpose of amendment may be defended as sufficient for the Sacrament, yet it is not free from risk ; hence St. Alphonsus in his book Praxis Confessarii distinctly states that a resolution founded only on the great number of venial sins without any sorrow for any particular venial sin is not suf ficient for receiving the Sacrament, while in his Moral Theology he grants that such a resolution is permissible, and founds it on the doctrine of St. Thomas; for it is impossible, he says, to be sorry on account of the number of the venial sins without repenting at least of those that have been last incurred and which have raised the number.26 The above doctrine may be useful to the priest in appeasing scruples about past confessions, if the penitent is not in the habit of falling into grave sin, and fears that he may have con fessed without sufficient sorrow and purpose of amendment. Ante factum, i.e. before confession or, at least, before absolution is given, this doctrine should be confined in praxi to the sorrow and amendment of sins not quite deliberate and incurred through carelessness; for the guilt of such sins lies chiefly in the care lessness by which a man fails to watch himself and his evil inclinations, so far as possible to repress and overcome them. It is impossible for a man to preserve himself entirely from 26 S. Alph. Praxis Confessarii, n. 71 ; Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 449. Cf. S. Thorn. III. Q. 87, a. 1. 136 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE all these sins, hence it is enough to be resolved to use great vigilance in reducing the number. Moreover, it may be observed that a man who keeps his con science so pure that he has only indeliberate venial sins to con fess will easily make a sufficient act of sorrow for past sins ; but if a man always falls into the same sin, it is a fairly clear sign that he has no true contrition and no firm purpose of amendment ; hence it is a useful practice to make more careful acts of sorrow and amendment with regard to some particular sin, or to add some grave sin of the past life with respect to which real sorrow and a firm purpose of amendment can be aroused. CHAPTER III CONFESSION ARTICLE I ESSENCE, NECESSITY, AND PROPERTIES OF CONFESSION 19. Essence and Necessity of Confession. THOUGH contrition is the most important of the dispositions which a penitent must bring to the Sacrament, the confessing of the sins is the most prominent feature to ordinary observers; hence the Sacrament is often simply called confession, as in the very earliest ages of the Church it was known simply as confessio (in Greek exomologesis). Sacramental confession is the self-accusation of sins com mitted after Baptism and not yet remitted in the Sacrament, and it is made by the penitent to a priest having the necessary faculties and with the object of obtaining absolution. Hence it is not a sacramental confession when the sins are told enarratione mere historica; such a recital would not be an accusation, nor would it be done with the view of acknowledg ing one's self a sinner or of obtaining absolution. Moreover, it is not a sacramental confession if sins are revealed to a priest to obtain counsel or help from him, or if they are told to the priest merely in derision, for there would be no accusation in this, at least it would not be done with a view of obtaining absolution. On the contrary, a confession invalid through any defect what ever would be sacramental if it was made in order to obtain absolution. If, however, a man began by simply relating his sins to an authorized priest without any idea of making a sacramental con- 137 138 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE fession, and then in order to obtain absolution accuses himself in general terms to the same priest of those same sins, the con fession would be sacramental, for then a formal accusation would be made of those sins to the priest as judge, in order that absolution might be given. The necessity of this confession for all mortal sins committed after Baptism is a dogma of the Church, and rests on the divine institution of the Sacrament. The proof is to be sought in dog matic treatises. In the divine institution of this Sacrament, as a necessary means for obtaining forgiveness of sin by confes sion to a priest, is included the divine command of confessing sin, which binds all who have committed mortal sin after Bap tism. We have already spoken of this in treating of the duty of approaching the Sacrament, since confession is one of the acts required of the penitent on receiving this Sacrament.1 There remains yet another point which shows the necessity of confession. Perfect contrition, as we have seen above, re mits sin apart even from the Sacrament, but it does not remove the obligation of mentioning the sins so remitted to a duly authorized priest. The obligation remains, because by Christ's command every mortal sin committed after Baptism must be submitted by confession to the power of the keys. This follows from the words of Our Lord (John xx. 23) ; hence the Council of Trent teaches that for those who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism confession is as necessary as Baptism is to those who have not been baptized.2 20. The Properties of Confession. The necessary properties of confession have their origin in its nature and object. The primary object of the confession is to put the confessor, who is bound to act in his office as a judge, not as a despot, in a position to form a judicial sentence, so 1 Compare above, § 3. 2 Sess. XIV. cp. 2. THE PROPERTIES OF CONFESSION 139 that he may be able to decide whether the sinner be worthy or unworthy of absolution, and also that he may be able to impose a suitable penance. To succeed in this the confession must be such as to allow the confessor a view of the whole moral state of the penitent, hence it must be complete. This property, how ever, being of very great importance, will be treated in a separate division. The other necessary feature, the contrition, has been already dealt with. The remaining properties are of secondary importance and not essential; they turn partly on the integrity and partly on the contrition and have been summarized in the following verses : — Sit simplex, humilis confessio, pura, fidelis Atque frequens, nuda et discreta, libens, verecunda, Integra, secreta et lacrimabilis, accelerata, Fortis et accusans et sit parere parata. Though these properties are not so essential that the want of any one of them nullifies the confession, they are all useful in their several ways to instruct a penitent how to make a good confession. For this reason we will treat of them : — 1. Simplex. The confession should be simple, straightforward, short, and clear; the penitent will therefore avoid all unneces sary, superfluous words, all prolix narrations and remarks which have no connection with the matter; at the same time he will avoid the use of all unintelligible expressions or such as are mis leading and ambiguous ; let his accusation be so worded that he may take it for granted that the priest will understand both the number and species of the sins. Thus, too, he must not accuse himself in a vague and general manner, as, "I have had bad thoughts"; for the confessor cannot judge from this whether a mortal or a venial sin, or indeed any sin .at all, has been incurred; let him use such words as describe clearly the sins he has com mitted, making use of the proper and specific terms. Finally, he should avoid unnecessary repetitions of sins which differ only in number, not recounting them separately because they were 140 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE committed at different times or on different occasions; all the sins should be grouped under their specific names and the num ber given. It is the duty of the priest, in the case of penitents who fail in this respect, to instruct them, at the same time tak ing into account the peculiarities of the penitent and showing great patience. St. Antoninus gives a very useful piece of ad vice on this subject. Penitents, says he, who need consolation in their trials or advice in their doubts should defer their diffi culties till after they have confessed and received absolution; otherwise, if they dilate on these subjects during the confession of their sins, there is danger of their contrition being weakened. 2. Humilis. Let the confession be humble, for a man ap proaches the tribunal as a penitent, as one guilty of crime, as one accusing himself to his judge and seeking grace and mercy; of such a one humility and lowliness are to be expected. Surely the knowledge of one's sins and sinfulness revealed by an honest examination of the conscience, the remembrance of repeated unfaithfulness and ingratitude to God, are reason enough for being humble. Let this humility fill the heart, pervade the accusation, be manifested in the whole exterior; then let the penitent go into the confessional, kneeling, with head uncov ered, like the publican in the Gospel, who remained by the door of the Temple and dared not to raise his eyes to heaven, but struck his breast and prayed : " God, be merciful to me a sinner." The words used by some are very appropriate as an introduction to the confession: "I, a poor sinner, confess and acknowledge to God, and to you, reverend father, in God's place, that I have sinned often and grievously by thought, word, deed, and omission," etc. Others, again, use the words of the Confiteor: " I confess to almighty God, to Blessed Mary, ever a virgin, . . . that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed," etc. 3. Pur a. The confession should be made with the object of gaining pardon of sin and the grace of the Sacrament. If it were made with any wicked and gravely sinful intention, it would be THE PROPEUT1ES OF CONFESSION 141 a sacrilegious and invalid confession; if the penitent had any venially sinful object in view, e.g. to gain esteem, the con fession would be valid though the penitent would incur the guilt of venial sin by it. If the penitent's principal intention is to be reconciled to God, though at the same time there be present other motives not altogether forbidden, the confession is unim paired; the same may easily happen in other good works, and secondary motives do not exclude the principal one. 4. Fidelis (sen verax). The confession should be truthful and candid, without lies and deceit. Hence the penitent must not conceal the sins he has committed, nor confess those which he has not committed; neither may he confess as certain what is doubtful, nor what is doubtful as certain. It is disputed whether every lie in confession is a mortal sin and renders the confession null. There are indeed theologians who maintain that every lie told in confession is a mortal sin, because of the sin being com mitted in the very act of receiving a Sacrament. This view, however, is wrong. It is true that any lie told in confession is more sinful than the same lie told under other circumstances would be, on account of the irreverence to the Sacrament ; but mortal sin would be incurred only by a lie in confession when the lie concerns the materia necessaria of confession ; in such a case the confession is invalid, for the judge is deceived about the case, and that is gravely wrong. If the penitent lies to the confessor in a matter which does not pertain to the Sacrament, there is no mortal sin, for such a lie does not mislead the judge nor imply a grave irreverence to the Sacrament, since still there is real mat ter for the Sacrament and a sufficient disposition to obtain the grace of the Sacrament. Accordingly, if the lie told in confession has nothing to do with the confession itself, it is mortal or venial on its own merits quite apart from the circumstances of its being told in confession. From what has been said it follows that a penitent incurs venial sin by a lie told in confession when (1) he accuses him- 142 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE self falsely of a venial sin or denies having committed a venial sin; except where this venial sin forms the sole matter of con fession, for then he would sin mortally, not on account of the lie, but on account of the grave irreverence done to the Sacrament in offering to the priest insufficient matter, for sins falsely stated can never be matter for absolution. (2) Moreover, it is only a venial sin if the penitent denies having committed a mortal sin which he is not bound hie et nunc to disclose, either because he has already revealed it in a valid confession or because he has pressing reasons for not dis closing it hie et nunc. Indeed it is possible that there is no sin at all when a penitent makes use of mental reservation. The confessor has no right to put questions which have no connec tion with the materia necessaria, and the penitent is not bound to answer such questions; to avoid a lie he may use a mental reservation by choosing an ambiguous expression which con tains the truth, leaving the confessor to judge for himself. If, on the contrary, the priest has a right to inquire of the penitent whether he has committed some grave sin which has been al ready confessed, and the penitent denies the charge, he would sin mortally.3 (3) If the penitent is questioned by the priest as to his home, his condition, or his relatives or friends, and answers not according to the truth, knowing that these questions have no bearing on the nature of his sins, such untruths are only venial ; for if a lie told in confession with respect to venial sins, although these may be matter of confession, be only a venial sin, a lie with respect to other things which have no connection with the accusation of the sins is still less likely to be mortal. On the other hand, a mortal sin is incurred (1) when a peni tent accuses himself of having committed a mortal sin which he has never committed, or denies having fallen into a mortal sin 8 Compare § 46. THE PROPERTIES OF CONFESSION 143 which he has incurred and which has never been validly con fessed, and which besides he has no valid reason for concealing, or if he conceals a mortal sin which he is bound to mention. (2) When he gives the number of his mortal sins as greater than is really the case. Here, however, ignorant and untaught penitents may be excused, because they honestly think it better to give a large number in preference to a small one. Besides, — (3) A penitent sins mortally who confesses mortal sin as doubtful which he is certain of having committed, or confesses as certain mortal sins of which he has doubts. In such cases the penitent would be unsettling the judgment of the confessor in a very grave matter. (4) Moreover, it would be a mortal sin if the penitent con fesses a recent mortal sin, either explicitly or equivalently, as an old one already confessed, for the priest is thus prevented from giving a correct sentence and imposing the proper penance. It is another case when the accusation leaves it doubtful whether the sin is an old or recent one, or whether it has been already confessed or not, even if the penitent intend that the confessor be persuaded that the sin is an old one. (5) Finally, the penitent incurs a mortal sin if he denies the existence of a habit of sin, or of a relapse or the existence of an occasion of sin, or if he avoids any avowal on the subject so as to mislead the confessor. It would accordingly be a mortal sin for a penitent to accuse himself of a recent mortal sin at the end of his confession by using a formula of this kind : "I accuse myself of the sins of my past life, in particular of this sin . . ." ; for this formula by universal consent implies only past sins already con fessed. On the other hand, it would not be a mortal sin in a general confession to mingle old with recent sins, as long as the confessor knows that not all the mortal sins have been already confessed; if the priest is persuaded that he ought to gain a clearer knowledge, he may ask ; if he believe that he may let the matter rest there, it is his affair (and perhaps in many cases this 144 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE may be the prudent course). Still less is it a mortal sin, indeed it may be counselled or obligatory in certain cases, for a peni tent to say that such or such sin has not yet been confessed, making the accusation in such a way that the confessor does not suspect that the sin has been recent. Such an expedient may be necessary when a priest himself confesses sins committed in hearing confessions, not wishing to violate the seal of confession.4 In addition, the confessor must remember that the faithful in general are persuaded that a lie in confession is a very grave sin, so that he must judge of its gravity according to the conscience of the penitent.5 5. Frequens. Confession ought to be frequently made (see above, § 3). This includes also the repeated confession of sins already confessed and absolved (see above, § 6). 6. Nuda. The penitent ought not to hide his sins by ambigu ous words or expressions which veil the hatefulness of the sin, in order to make them appear less in the eyes of the confessor. A penitent who thus veils his sins cannot have real contrition; there still remains in his heart that false shame which confuses the intellect, and his soul is not yet released from sin. Such conduct is in reality no less sinful than concealing the sin en tirely, for what is the difference between total silence and answer ing so obscurely that the questioner is left in doubt? Just as a penitent makes a bad confession who conceals what he ought to tell, so does he who answers his confessor in such obscure terms that the latter does not understand or is led to take a view which the penitent knows to be wrong. The conditional accusation is no better, as when, for example, a penitent says: "If I have given way to impure thoughts, I accuse myself of them," etc. Such a confession is not an accusa tion of sins, nor is it a sign of absolute aversion from them. 4 Cf . Lehmkuhl, 1. c. P. II. cp. II. Confessio, art. I. § 2, n. 313, 314 ; Balle- rini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I. art. 3, n. 457. 5 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 495-497; H. Apost. Tr. 16, n. 28. THE PROPERTIES OF CONFESSION 145 7. Discreta. The confession should be prudent, i.e. so worded that the reputations of others do not suffer; hence the sins of others ought not to be revealed except in so far as is necessary for the declaration of one's own sins. Not a few penitents prefer to tell the sins of others rather than their own : wives, for in stance, tell the sins of their husbands, servants the sins of their masters. Such penitents must be seriously admonished by their confessor for the future not to reveal the sins of others lest they incur the guilt of detraction and God's anger in the very tribunal of His mercy. The question as to the partner in sin, whether and under what circumstances he is to be revealed in confession, is relegated to a later portion of the treatise. The penitent's own good sense will tell him to be as discreet and decorous as possible in confessing his sins, especially those against purity, without detracting from the completeness of the confession, without being gross, and at the same time without failing in the reverence due to the Sacrament; hence he should tell only what is necessary for the integrity of the confession, and that as cautiously and becomingly as is possible, quite briefly, in clear and intelligible language; the confession must be per fect and at the same time chaste. The confessor also must exer cise great discretion and prudence in this dangerous matter.6 Finally, a prudent penitent will choose a suitable and virtuous confessor who unites real piety and prudent zeal to solid knowl edge and a wide experience. Not only is it advisable and wholesome to have a regular confessor, but it is absolutely necessary. Of course as far as the absolution is concerned it is always valid, provided that the priest who gives it has the requisite faculties; but as for the spiritual direction of the penitent, it is by no means an indiffer ent matter who the confessor is; if ever there is an occasion in which there is need of a trusty, reliable friend, guide, and adviser, « See §§ 47, 54. 146 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE it is in making a confession. On this point St. Francis of Sales writes: "When Tobias was about to send his son to Rages, and the latter explained that he did not know the way, 'Go, then/ said his father, 'and seek a man who knows the way, that he may guide you.' This is my advice to you, Philothea; if you really desire to tread the way of perfection, seek out above all things a man of experience to guide you and show you the way : this is the most important lesson of all.7'7 And after treating the subject in his usual way, he quotes the remarkable words which the great St. Louis shortly before his death addressed to his son: " Confess often, and choose for your confessor a man of experience, who has not only wisdom and science, but also zeal for souls, and learn from him what you ought to do." The priest as God's vicar is not a judge only, he is a physician, and it is not hard to understand how one physician can differ from another. For a soul which is anxious to get rid of sin, to be established in virtue, and to make progress in Christian per fection, as all Christians are bound to do, there is required not only the application of the Sacrament, but guidance as well. The direction of souls goes much farther than a mere dispensing of the Sacrament. There are many things in which a soul eager for salvation must be anxious for further instruction; the methods of combating with success different evil inclinations, the methods of prayer, the performance of certain good works, the way of carrying out the duties of one's state of life with more zeal and merit, and the attainment of perfection. An approved confessor and director is undoubtedly very useful, nay, necessary, and the penitent should pick out such a one. In a choice of this kind he should have no other object but his salvation and spiritual progress, and hence he should choose a well-instructed, experienced, and holy man to lead him in the way of God in the interior life, one who knows the penitent's 7 Philothea, Part I. Chap. 4. THE PROPERTIES OF CONFESSION 147 condition, one whose heart is full of love, one who is as far re moved from a feeble indulgence as from a repelling strictness. Firmness and gentleness should be united in him, a firmness which does not crush and a gentleness which will not allow presumption; he should inspire confidence so that the penitent has no difficulty in unfolding his heart to him. To seek an ignorant and inexperienced confessor is, as theologians express it, to choose a sure guide to hell ; and, according to the teaching of Suarez, etc., it is a mortal sin when done with the intention of obtaining absolution by fraud.8 But a good confessor is a " faithful friend, a strong defense; and he that hath found him hath found a treasure ; . . . and they that fear the Lord shall find him."9 St. Francis of Sales directs Philothea to make choice of a confessor after constant prayer, and assures her that God will grant her this most important of petitions and send her a man after his own heart. When the penitent has made choice of his confessor in accord ance with those rules of common sense which great spiritual writers enjoin, his duty is then to love him as his spiritual father, to fear him as the judge of his conscience, to follow him as his guide in the path of virtue, to take his advice as his physician in the maladies, affections, and sufferings of his soul. He should follow him, as though he were an angel leading the way to heaven ; give him his whole confidence; deal with him in all openness and frankness; disclose to him all the good and evil in his soul without dissembling or reserve, and at the same time entertain a respect for him which does not weaken his confidence in him.10 Having once chosen a good confessor, the penitent should cling to him and not change about from one to another ; noth ing is more harmful or more foolish than such conduct ; unstable and wandering penitents of this kind give sufficient proof that all 8 Suarez, Disp. 28 ; Stotz, 1. c. Lib. I. P. I. Q. II. art. II. 9 Ecclus. vi. 14 ss. 10 Compare Philothea, ibid. 148 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE they want is to be absolved and not to be helped and guided, and there is reason to suspect that their purpose of amendment is by no means sincere. Should a penitent, however, be in such a condition that to confess to his regular confessor would be too great a difficulty and involve risk of making sacrilegious con fession, it would be better to look out for some other priest and confess to him. The penitent ought not at the same time be so dependent on his confessor as to be .quite bewildered when a change becomes necessary. Discouragement or sadness on this account, or a less frequent use of the Sacraments would be a sign that this depend ence was due to some undesirable cause and could not be any longer regarded as confidence in the director. What is to be thought of those penitents who have two con fessors, one to whom they are well known and whose good opin ion they enjoy, and another to whom they are not well known, using the former to tell him their more frequent and smaller sins, and the latter for the confession of graver faults, in order that they may thereby keep up their good reputation with the first ? Such conduct is certainly not per se forbidden when there is good reason for it, as may happen when any one is unwilling or does not dare to reveal to his ordinary confessor some very shameful fall. Still the practice is not without danger and so cannot be un conditionally recommended, for it is a sign that a penitent is more anxious about his good name than his progress in the spiritual life ; indeed he might incur grievous sin if such conduct exposed him to the danger of falling into mortal sin, as would be the case if in pursuing this course he never intended seriously to give up his sin. Such is the predicament of those penitents who seek out inexperienced or easy-going confessors, or of those who habitually fall into mortal sins, confessing them only to a priest who, they know, will take the matter very quietly, while they reveal their less grievous sins to some pious and strict confessor. THE PROPERTIES OF CONFESSION 149 On the other hand, the case above quoted presents quite another aspect when a penitent has on rare occasions fallen into a grave and shameful sin and shrinks from revealing it to his ordinary confessor.11 8. Libens. The confession ought to be voluntary; the peni tent should approach the sacred tribunal spontaneously, not prompted by prayers or threats, nor prevailed upon by promises, nor driven by fear of temporal losses; he should willingly ac knowledge his sins to the priest as the minister of Christ Our Lord appointed to forgive sin and distribute His graces. A man might of course be influenced by those exterior motives to re ceive the Sacrament ; and if he made an earnest act of contri tion and carried out the other requisites, he would make a valid confession. There is, however, as Laymann observes, a real danger for a man who goes to the Sacrament under compulsion that he will make his confession invalid through want of contri tion or through a deficient accusation of his sins. It frequently happens that such penitents, giving way to external pressure, perform their Easter confession, doing it only to keep up appear ances; they make no act of contrition, they are unwilling to tell all that lies on their conscience, they are ready to make a bad confession and communion. A prudent confessor may detect their insincerity and sometimes will prevail upon them to make a good confession. 9. Verecunda. The penitent should make his confession with confusion at the number and greatness of his sins, his ingrati tude and infidelity to God his Lord and Father; this confusion should fill his soul and reveal itself even in the self-accusation and in the whole bearing of the penitent. Between this real shame of every good penitent and the false shame which arises from pride and self-love is a great gulf; the latter, unless over come, will cause the penitent to be dishonest in his accusation 11 Cf. Stotz, 1. c. Lib. I. P. I. Q. II. art. II. n. 116-124. 150 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE and to make a sacrilegious confession. The confessor should be very considerate of the weakness of such' penitents and encour age them, helping them to make a candid avowal if he suspects false shame, and he should be careful not to frighten and shock them by hard words or untimely threats. 10. The other property of the confession, its integrity, will, on account of its great importance, be reserved for a thorough discussion in another paragraph. 11. Secreta. The accusation should be in secret. It should be made so as to be heard only by the priest and not by others. Christ did not institute public confession; and if in the early Church those who had committed grave public sin and given public scandal were compelled after private confession to make a public avowal of their offenses, this was only part of the then existing discipline. As a matter of fact the practice was pro ductive of as much harm as good, and so the Church put an end to it.12 Confession by an interpreter would, however, be valid, as well as a confession which had been overheard by others. There is no obligation to confess through an interpreter if one happens to be in a country of which he does not know the lan guage, supposing there is no priest to whom one can make him self understood, for the Lateran Council 13 prescribes confessio secreta made to a priest only (soli sacerdoti facienda), and to employ an interpreter for confession would be very onerous.14 Such an obligation would exist only if a dying man had doubts as to the perfection of his contrition, for the wish to save our souls obliges us to avoid all risk. Then, however, it would be sufficient to name one or two sins and make a general accusation of the rest.15 12 Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5. 13 Cap. Omnis utriusque sexns. 14 Cf. Declar. S. C. S. Off. 28 Feb. 1633 et 10 Feb. 1608 ; item S. C. Prop. Fid. 1633 in Collectan. S. Sedis, n. 476-478. 15 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 479; Lugo, De Pcen. Disp. XV. Sect. V; Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. n. 196. THE PROPERTIES OF CONFESSION 151 Moreover, a sufficiently perfect confession may be made even through an interpreter without the latter acquiring any knowl edge of the sins. The confessor, for example, in the case of the sick, may arrange through the interpreter a system of signs, such as pressure of the hand, motion of the head or eyes, by which the invalid may answer the questions put by the priest through the interpreter, who may be placed with his back to the priest and penitent ; by a method of this kind even the number of sins may be ascertained. Of course in a case like this the confessor must be careful not to betray the penitent's replies by the nature of his questions. If a male penitent express a wish to confess in this manner, he may be allowed to do so.16 A confession made in writing is per se valid; on the other hand, as we have already seen, absolution conveyed per literas is null. The custom, however, of making the confession by word of mouth must be strictly adhered to (hence many theologians add to the other properties of a good confession that it should be vocalis), and unless there are pressing reasons for the con trary practice the confession should not be made by writing or by. any other system of signs; a sufficiently good reason for allowing it would be great shame in mentioning certain sins or a defect in speech. In such cases the priest would read the writing and the penitent make some acknowledgment by word of mouth, such as, "I accuse myself of all contained in the paper." If the whole confession without any good reason were made by writing or by signs, it would be invalid, for the penitent would have sinned gravely by such an action unless he had acted bona fide.17 A dumb penitent who can write and has no other way of mak ing his confession is, according to the sententia communis et pro- babilior, obliged to make his confession in writing, for this would 16 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 328. 17 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 429, 493 ; Suarez, Opusc., Lugo, Coninck, etc., Konings, Theol. Mor. T. II. Tract. De Sacram. Pcen. cp. II. art. II. n. 1358. 152 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE not be burdensome to him. The opponents of this view insist on the danger of the confession being revealed and, in conse quence, deny the obligation of making the confession in writing. Such a risk, as experience shows, is not usually to be feared and may easily be avoided. There are indeed not a few penitents who to secure their own peace of mind always write their con fessions and read them off to the priest. If, however, in a par ticular case there is danger of revelation or any other serious inconvenience to the penitent in consequence of his writing, there is no obligation. So teaches St. Thomas, and with him are Suarez, Lugo, Sporer, Salmanticenses, etc.18 12. Lacrimabilis. The confession should be made with real sorrow. It is not necessary that it be accompanied by tears or sighs and other external signs of the kind, but it is required that there be a real sorrow and horror of sin. The internal sorrow should become sensibilis or evident by the confession so as to form materia sacramenti. The sentiment of contrition can always be roused by grace, while tears are not in our power. 13. Accelerata. The confession should be prompt; there should be no delay in making it after mortal sin has been com mitted. This is not of precept, but it is a counsel which should be readily followed by any one who realizes the horror of sin and its consequences. 14. Fortis. The confession should be made with great cour age, all hindrances to a candid avowal of one's sins being put aside, especially false shame and the fear of losing the good esteem of the priest. It is the delight of the devil, not before, but after entrapping a soul into sin, to work upon the feeling of 18 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 479; H. A. n. 35; Gury-Ballerini (1. c. II. n. 503) and Lehmkuhl (1. c. n. 328) object to binding the dumb to a written confession; a fortiori the confessor may refrain from putting questions in writing with a view of making the confession more complete. If, however, a dumb person desire to confess in writing, the confessor is at liberty to comply with his wish. NECESSITY OF THE INTEGRITY OF CONFESSION 153 shame so vehemently that the penitent is tempted to conceal sins which are particularly shameful. In this case the penitent must use all his courage, and by reflecting on God's command and the awful consequences of a bad confession get the victory over this false shame. He must put into practice Tertullian's maxim, Pereat pudor, ne pereat anima. 15. Accusans. The confession should be an accusation and not a series of excuses. Thus the penitent ought to impute the sins to himself and not to other causes, temptations of the devil, the passions, natural weakness, etc., nor to the companions by whose advice or orders he has gone astray. There may be of course occasions where what is objectively a mortal sin may become only venial or perhaps no sin at all, through inculpable forge tfulness or absent-mindedness or inadvertence. 16. Par ere paratus. The penitent should be disposed to obey the priest's advice and commands ; hence he should be ready to adopt the means suggested for his improvement, to follow out the advice given, to avoid the occasions of sin which are pointed out to him, and to accept the penance which is imposed on him. ARTICLE II THE INTEGRITY OF THE CONFESSION 21. Necessity of the Integrity of Confession. The confession is complete when the penitent reveals all the sins which he is bound to tell. A distinction is drawn between material and formal integrity. A confession is materially com plete when a penitent discloses all the mortal sins committed since Baptism which have not yet been submitted to the keys, together with their number and species. On the other hand, the confession is formally complete when he confesses all the mortal sins which he is morally able and bound to reveal hie et nunc.19 19 The following well-known definition is much like the above : the confes- 154 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE From this definition it is clear that where there is material integrity there is also formal integrity; a confession, however, which is formally complete need not on this account be materially so. With respect to the obligation of the integrity of confession we may lay down the following propositions : — I. It is of divine precept to confess all mortal sins committed after Baptism. 1. This follows from the words by which Christ instituted the Sacrament; by them He gave the Sacrament a judicial character. So teaches the Council of Trent.20 From the institution of the Sacrament of Penance "the universal Church has always recognized that the complete confession of sins was also instituted by Our Lord, and is necessary jure divino for all who have sinned after Baptism. For Our Lord Jesus Christ when about to ascend into heaven left the priests as His vicars and judges, by whom all mortal sins into which the faith- sion is materially entire in which nothing is wanting which per se loquendo ought to be confessed, i.e. when nothing is wanting which de se forms the necessary matter of confession ; the confession is formally entire when nothing is wanting in the accusation through the fault of the penitent. Cf. Konings, 1. c. n. 1359. Moralists are not of one mind on the definition of formal and material integrity; some understand by material integrity the avowal of all mortal sins not yet confessed which occur to the mind (after a careful examination of conscience, as Miiller expressly adds, 1. c. 120), since they form the ma ter ia necessaria sacramenti et confessionis ; formal integrity, on the other hand, consists in the avowal of all mortal sins which here and now (hie et nunc), taking all the circumstances into consideration, can and ought to be con fessed. Thus Gury, 1. c. Edit. Koniana (Ballerini) et Edit. Lugd. (Dumas), n. 468 (where, however, the author is not quite consistent, cf. n. 470) ; while on the other hand the Edit. Katisb. as also Laymann, De Poenitent. cp. 8, n. 5, and Stotz, 1. c. Lib. I. P. III. Q. II. art. IV; Scavini, 1. c. Tom. IV. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. II. n. 38, have the above definition. We give the preference to it on grounds which will appear in the course of the treatise ; moreover, it is more common and is in harmony with the teaching of the Council of Trent. The words which St. Alphonsus employs in the definition of material integrity seem to favor the latter view. Cf. Lib. VI. n. 465. 20 Sess. XIV. cp. 5, De Confessione. NECESSITY OF THE INTEGRITY OF CONFESSION 155 ful had fallen were to be judged, thau in virtue of the power of the keys they might pronounce sentence of forgiveness or reten tion." The priest is therefore a judge, and as judge should pro nounce the absolution. But the sentence of a judge is valid only when it turns on the facts of the case ; hence a knowledge of the latter is required on the part of the judge. In consequence the confessor, in order to pronounce a valid sentence, must know intimately the facts of the case, the state of the sinner. Now the facts of the case are the mortal sins of the penitent; hence the confessor must be made acquainted with these; and as he can only learn them from the penitent himself, the latter is bound to make a complete statement of them. 2. The essential object of this Sacrament is the forgiveness of sins that have been confessed. But one mortal sin cannot be forgiven apart from the rest, since forgiveness is the result of the influx of sanctifying grace, which does not remove sin as stains might be rubbed from a metal surface, but at once raises man from a state of sin to a state of grace, from being an enemy of God to being His friend. Moreover, sanctifying grace and mor tal sin cannot exist together in the soul. From this it follows that all sins must be told without exception, in order that they may all be remitted. 3. Add to this the essential connection between the judicial power of the priest in the Sacrament and his power of punishing sin or imposing a penance for it ; but since the penance must be proportioned to the misdeeds, the priest cannot exercise his powers properly unless, at least, the mortal sins have been fully confessed. If, as must happen at times, it is inopportune or, in fact, quite impossible to assign a penance bearing any propor tion to the number and magnitude of the sins, that is quite per accidens and the decision of the question is the affair of the judge, not of the penitent. That Christ gave His Church the power of punishing sin is abundantly proved by the practice of so many centuries during which definite penances were assigned to 156 THE EEC IP IE NT OF PENANCE certain sins. Since, therefore, the Church of divine right can mete out just punishment for sin, the penitent is bound by divine precept to submit himself to the Church by an entire confession of all mortal sins. From the fact that the confessor must pro nounce sentence and impose a suitable penance, the Council of Trent concludes " that all mortal sins of which the penitent is conscious after diligent search must be confessed, even though they be quite secret sins and only against the last two command ments of the decalogue." 4. Finally, the Sacrament of Penance has of its very nature another end in view, that of preventing relapse. Thus the con fessor is at the same time the physician of the soul, empowered and obliged to prescribe the means of reform. This duty can be effectually carried out only when he knows intimately the penitent's state of soul, so that the latter is obliged to submit to his healing art all the mortal wounds of the soul. Hence the Council of Trent anathematizes all who teach " that for remission of sins in the Sacrament of Penance it is not neces sary jure divino that all and every mortal sin be confessed of which a man is conscious after faithful and diligent search." 21 II. The material integrity, however, is not always necessary for the validity of confession and for obtaining its benefits. At times it is morally and even physically impossible, either through inculpable forgetfulness or for other reasons. Now God does not command impossibilities. Hence the Council of Trent teaches: "The remaining sins which escape the diligent inquiry of the penitent are considered as included in the same accusation," and so are forgiven, as though they had been confessed. Hence it is abundantly clear that the material integrity of the confession is not always necessary. III. The formal integrity is, on the other hand, always neces sary for the validity of the Sacrament, and belongs to its essence. 21 Sess. XIV. can. 7. EXTENT OF THE INTEGRITY OF CONFESSION 157 A penitent, for instance, who out of shame conceals a mortal sin, transgresses Christ's command which obliges us to submit all mortal sins by a sincere confession to the power of the keys, incurring at the same time a mortal sin by his bad confession; such a confession cannot be valid nor have any good effect. This is also taught by the Council of Trent22 in the following words : " While the faithful earnestly endeavor to confess all the sins of which they are conscious, they present them to the Divine Mercy that they may all be forgiven; those, however, who do other wise and knowingly conceal sins, present nothing to God's good ness to be forgiven through the priest. If the sick man is ashamed to show his wounds to the physician, the latter cannot cure what is unknown to him." 23 To have a perfect understanding of the preceding, we must distinguish between what is of the essence of the Sacrament and that which flows as a consequence of the divine command. When anything is wanting to the essence of the Sacrament, though the defect may be due to no fault on the part of the per son, the Sacrament is invalid ; if, on the contrary, there be want ing some requirement of divine precept, making the defect culpable, the Sacrament is indirectly invalid because contrition is wanting, since contrition cannot exist in any one who is in the very act of sin ; if, however, the defect be inculpable, the result of forgetfulness or ignorance, the Sacrament is valid; the sins which were omitted through no fault of the penitent are in directly forgiven by the infusion of sanctifying grace. There remains, however, the obligation of making good the defect afterwards, as we shall see later. 22. Extent of the Integrity of Confession. For a complete confession it is necessary to state clearly and precisely not only all mortal sins, but their number and species 22 L. c. cp. 5. 23 Ti-id. 1. c. cp. 5. Compare Palmieri, 1. c. Thes. XXXIII; Gury, 1. c. 158 THE EEC IP IE NT OF PENANCE and the circumstances which change the species. This is the doctrine of the Council of Trent when it enjoins the confession of each and every sin; to do this a man must give the number of the mortal sins committed. One who has missed Mass ten times and merely confesses, "I have missed Mass/7 has not con fessed each and every sin, for an indeterminate number, by the very fact of being undetermined, does not necessarily mean the number ten ; • it may mean ten, but that possibility does not indicate the number. With regard to the confession of the spe cies and of the circumstances changing the species, the Council teaches expressly that the circumstances which change the kind (species) of sin ought to be confessed. Since those circum stances are to be expressed which change the kind of sin, noth ing can be clearer than that, in accordance with the decision of the Council, the sins are to be confessed according to their spe cies.24 The reasons which the Council 25 gives for insisting on the duty of confessing the species of sin are that otherwise the sins would not be perfectly revealed by the penitent or understood by the judge, and that without a knowledge of the species of the sin the judge would be unable to pronounce on the gravity of the sin and to inflict a suitable punishment for it. Thus the reasons which hold for the completeness of the con fession require also the species and number of the sins; without them the confession has not the completeness which is demanded for it. The confessor is a judge who must have the most accu- II. n. 469 ; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 185 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. cp. II. (Confessio) art. I. n. 302. 24 It is to be noted that in speaking of the classification of sins we abstract from the physical, we confine ourselves to the moral species which indicates the peculiar malice of the sin ; for instance, the ordeal by fire is physically distinct from the ordeal by water, but morally they are in the same species, because the malice is the same in both sins. Cf. Suarez, De Poenit. Disp. 22, Sect. 2, n. 3. 25 Sess. XIV. cp. 5. EXTENT OF THE INTEGRITY OF CONFESSION 159 rate knowledge of his penitent in order to pronounce sentence and inflict the necessary penalty. Now he cannot know the state of his penitent unless he is acquainted with the number and species of his sins, for it is the species which determines the nature or essence of the sin. Besides, the sins ought to be con fessed according to their malice, but this can be estimated only from the kind of sin and the number of times it has been com mitted. Not all sins against the sixth commandment have the same malice or belong to the same species, for to the special mal ice of impurity may be added that of sacrilege or adultery if the sinner be consecrated by vow to God or in the married state. And there is no doubt that one who has committed a crime ten times is more deserving of punishment than he who has fallen only once. The penitent must confess the species infima, the ultimate species of his sin, for this is what is ordinarily understood by the 3pecies, and the Council of Trent insists upon this obligation. Hence it is not enough to say, "I have sinned in thought, word, and deed," or, "I have broken the commandments of the Church"; the penitent must add the species, the particular commandment broken, the observance of Sunday, fasting, yearly confession, etc., and in addition the penitent must give the species infima, whether he has missed Mass or broken his fast or abstinence. Nor is the following accusation sufficient: "I have sinned against the sixth commandment," "I have been wanting in purity," or the like; the species must be given, de fining whether the sin be incest or adultery, etc., or whether by thoughts, words, etc. So, too, when a penitent accuses himself of sin against faith, it is not sufficient ; he should state the par ticular act by which he has sinned, whether by heresy, by unbelief, by indifference, etc. Supposing the penitent cannot remember the species infima of a sin which he has committed, he must state against what virtue he has sinned; or if he cannot remember this, but has 160 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE only a recollection of having sinned mortally, he must confess this. This is the opinion of all theologians (communis et certa doctrina) . To indicate fully the species of the sin, one must also tell whether the sinful acts were external . and whether the evil effects have been retracted. Since the sins themselves are the particular matter of the sacramental tribunal, they must, as Lehmkuhl shows, be con fessed secundum specificam distinctionem, i.e. according to their specific differences. This is not at all the same thing as the obligation of confessing the specific malice (specified malitia). Sins are human acts (actus humanus) , and so they may be classed in specie actus as well as in specie malitice; to desire to steal and to steal are acts having the same specific malice, but they are not specifically the same act. Indeed no one would maintain that one might confound the two sins in confession by merely confessing the specific malice.26 Hence the actus externus which completes the internal act 27 as a sin and on that account is in se opposed to right order and morality must be mentioned ex pressly in confession. The actus externus is either commissio or omissio (sin of commission or omission). Thus, for example, the absence from Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation must be confessed, whether it happen through indifference or love of study or idleness, because the absence from Mass is what is objectively opposed to the law and what has been voluntarily incurred. The wounding and killing of a man are external actions which in ratione peccati complete the sinful act of the will, and so it is not enough to confess, "I had the desire to wound." If he has inflicted a wound, it is enough to say, "I 26 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. P. IT. Lib. I. Tract. V. Sacr. Poenit. Sect. II. cp. II. art. I. § 2, n. 307. 27 Cum acfu inferno a quo procedit facit unum complete individuum in genere moris, actus enim externus se halet veluti materia, internus veluti forma unius operationis Jmmance. Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV, cp. III. EXTENT OF THE INTEGRITY OF CONFESSION 161 have dealt a wound," for he has sufficiently indicated by that avowal the internal act. If, again, a man wounded another intending to kill, it is not enough to say, "I intended to kill," but he must add, "and I wounded the man." 28 With regard to the obligation of confessing the effect 29 of a mortal sin theologians are not of one mind, since it is not always clear whether the evil effect flowing from a cause voluntarily chosen is in sese a sin or not. It is certain that the mains effec- tus of a sinful action must be confessed if such effect fall under a reservation, or under a censure, or if the question of restitution is to be settled. However, it is certain that if such effects were not at all foreseen, there is no obligation to confess them. Thus a murder committed under the influence of drink need not be confessed, supposing that such a consequence had been alto gether unforeseen. As to the other cases, those theologians who deny that the mains effectus voluntarius in causa is a sin, because the effect is no longer in se voluntary or, being beyond the control of the will, is desired only in its cause (voluntarius in causa est), maintain that such an effect need not be confessed. Other theologians, as St. Thomas, Suarez, Soto, Sanchez, etc., make a distinction, teaching that the mains effectus is no sin, when the evil will has been retracted by contrition and repentance before the act has taken place whose effect cannot be hindered; if, however, the evil will lasts, the effect is a sin. Hence a priest who, to escape saying his office, would throw his breviary into the sea, but repent of his act immediately after, is not obliged to confess the omission of his office, since the omission was not a sin, but only the evil effect of a sin already repented of. So, too, a man 28 Renter, Theol. Mor. P. IV. Tract. V. De Confess. Q. VI. n. 317; Maz- zotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. T. Q. IV. cp. III. 29 The effect of a mortal sin is omne id quod consequitur ad totum peccatum completum in in dividuo ; e.g, the wish to kill is externally completed in esse peccati by the giving of poison ; the death which ensues is called the effectus peccati. 162 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE who has given another poison and, before death takes place, con fesses his crime with sorrow is not obliged, after death has taken place, to accuse himself again of murder. On the other hand, the evil effects which take place when«the will did not retract must be confessed, since they are at least the completion of the external sin and share in the malice of the cause. Mazzotta makes a distinction here which is very apt. He says: if an effect follows from a sinful act, and though it may be prevented, is not so prevented, the penitent must confess the effect because it completes his neglect in so far as this is an external sin; if the effect cannot be hindered, there is no obligation per se lo- quendo to confess the mains effectus, for it is neither a sin in se nor does it externally complete the sin.30 To the preceding we add two observations : - 1. Since the duty of making a complete confession rests on a command, we are not obliged per se to confess what is probabiliter not enjoined by the precept, for, in accordance with sound prin ciples of probabilism, a doubtful law has no binding force. To this we may add, that a confession is valid in which the penitent omits nothing through any grievous fault of his own, that is, knowingly or through culpable ignorance and carelessness. Now the principles of probability furnish a practically safe conscience with regard to the limits of a command; hence in this case the confession is entire, at least formally entire, and that is sufficient for the validity and grace of the Sacrament. 2. If the penitent, through forgetfulness or for some lawful reason, without any blame attaching to him, omits to mention something which is necessary for the integrity of the confession, he is bound to disclose it on the next occasion; for, by the decision of the Council of Trent, each and every mortal sin of which one is conscious must be mentioned, that it may be directly remitted; hence if sins occur to the mind which have not yet 80 Mazzotta, 1. c. cp. III. with Lugo, Salm., TamK, etc. Cf . Marc, P. CL Institut. Moral. Alphons. Tom. IT. P. TTI. Tract. V. Pe Pcenit. n. 1C92. THE NUMBER OF SINS IN CONFESSION 163 been confessed, they must be submitted to the power of the keys. Thus Alexander VII condemned the proposition : Sins which have been forgotten or omitted in confession on account of in stant danger to life or for any other reason, need not be mentioned in the next confession (cf. Prop. 11 damn.). 23. The Number of Sins in Confession. The declaration of the number of sins is another feature com pleting the Sacrament. The penitent must give the number of his mortal sins so far as he can ; if he knows exactly how often he has fallen into a mortal sin, he must state that number of times, neither increasing nor diminishing ; if, despite careful ex amination and reflection he cannot arrive at the real number, he must give it as near as possible, adding the words " about" or "at least"; in so doing he fulfills his obligation, for he has done what he could, which is sufficient to enable a judgment to be pronounced humano modo. Should the penitent, after having thus confessed in all good faith, discover later on a more accu rate number than that confessed, he is not obliged to make an other confession to supply this number; nor should he disquiet himself, for the round numbers given in the first confession in cluded everything; it is only when the newly discovered num ber is considerably greater than the vague estimate of his first confession that he is obliged to confess again, because the num ber, and, in consequence, the sin, was not perfectly confessed, since a far greater number cannot be considered as included in his former round estimate.31 The question naturally arises what the confessor is to under stand by a numeral qualified by " about" or "at least." As a general rule the greater the number expressed, the greater is the number that may be understood as implied ; for instance, " about 31 This is communis theologorum doctrina. Cf. S. Alpli. 1. c. Lib. VI. n. 466; Reuter, 1. c. Tract. V. De Confess, n. 312; Lugo, Disp. 16, Sect. "2. 164 THE RECIPIENT OF FINANCE three times" would mean from two to four times; " about five times," from four to six times; " about ten times," from eight to twelve times; " about one hundred times," at most from ninety to one hundred and ten times. It is clear from this general appreciation of theologians that the numbers implied by the term " about" increase in proportion to the actual num ber mentioned. If the penitent discovers that he has mentioned a number considerably less than the truth, he must remedy the defect; if he has erred by giving too large a number, he need not correct the mistake, because the larger number includes the less. Moreover, it is advisable, instead of using high numbers, to state how often the sin has been committed in the course of a week or a month, etc., especially with regard to frequent or inte rior sins. Indeed with habitual sinners it suffices to state how long they have indulged the evil habit, and that they have given willful consent more or less daily whenever occasion offered ; this is enough, when the actual number of sins is so doubtful that there would always be a grave risk of a mistake in trying to determine it. "The confessor, when he knows the period over which the accusation extends, may easily and safely form his opinion in the case of a penitent whose will is habitually inclined to sin, that the penitent has sinned as often as there were necessary interruptions to his sin." 32 This method in determining the number of sins is as well founded as the other, for in this case, too, all is done that is morally possible. Hence the confessor should never force his penitent to give a deter minate number, for this is in most cases impossible. On the other hand, the confessor should help the penitent to state the number in the way we have indicated.33 82 Lehmk. 1. c. cp. II. Confessio, art. I. § 1, n. 305. 33 S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 20. Compare Casus Bened. XIV, pro anno 1744, mens. Jun. cas. 3. A man confesses that for a month he has been harboring evil thoughts against his friend, and during the same time enter taining impure thoughts about a woman ; the question is put whether such a confession is sufficiently complete. The answer is given distinguendo : THE NUMBER OF SINS IN CONFESSION 165 Hence a prostitute makes a sufficient statement in confessing how often she has been accustomed to sin each day or week, at the same time telling the species, or at least the more general species, of the sins so far as possible; she would make a perfect confession by an accusation such as follows: "I have spent so many years in this state of sin, and as occasion offered I sinned with all who came, married and unmarried, and also with those who were bound by vow." Penitents must always give at least the more general specific characters of their sins, and the num ber of times per day or week they have sinned.34 A similar difficulty is presented in the case of those who have a deeply rooted habit of sin — those, for example, who con stantly entertain impure desires with regard to women whom they chance to meet; it is very difficult in such a case to give any number. Such people make a perfect confession by stat ing that they are given to this habit, adding whether they in dulge frequently in the day or week; besides this they should mention at least the more general specific characters, whether they indulge these desires with regard to married people or relations or persons consecrated to God.35 The same difficulty arises with regard to uneducated and ignorant people who have to accuse themselves of impure con versations carried on at their work during the whole day, on all sorts of subjects and before all kinds of companions. They, too, may confess the number and species of their sins as we have indicated above.30 Lugo and Sporer would also admit the confession as valid and 1. If the penitent has occasionally recalled his unfriendly wishes or impure desires, and has not fallen into them very often, the confession is not suffi cient. 2. If he has never retracted in either case and has fallen frequently into those sins every day, the statement will suffice as it stands. 84 Cf. Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 16, n. 573 ; Sporer, Theolog. Moral. Sacram. P. III. cp. III. Q. IV. n. 452. 85 Lugo, 1. c. n. 574; Sporer, 1. c. n. 453; Reuter, 1. c. n. 313. 86 Lugo, 1. c. n. 575; Sporer, 1. c. n. 453. 166 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE give absolution to a thief who accuses himself as follows: ".Since I was ten years old I have been so addicted to stealing that whenever a chance was offered — and that happened very frequently — I stole what I could ; besides I have stolen sacred objects of considerable value on five occasions or, if I mistake not, six." 37 Though the accusation of the species in confession usually offers more difficulty than that of the number, yet Lugo advises the more learned confessors in particular to refrain from being too exacting in demanding the classification from their penitents. As the less-trained confessor may fail in this respect by defect, the more learned confessor is exposed to the danger of excess. The penitent must give the species of the sin, and the confessor is bound to inquire with due regard to the penitent's ability and the knowledge which he had at the time of sinning; for a man cannot do evil of which he is ignorant; moreover, it is sufficient to have a general consciousness of grave malice. 24. The Confession of the Circumstances of Sins. The circumstances under which sins are committed (condi- tiones quce actus substantiam circwnstant atque in ejus moralitatem influunt) are of different kinds: 1. Some change the species of the sin (speciem mutantes) ; for example, the circumstance of a vow or of marriage adds to the sin of impurity that of sacrilege or that of adultery. 2. Other circumstances are aggravating (aggravantes) in greater or less degree and gradum moralitatis mutantes or moralitatem augentes — such, for instance, as increase the malice within the limits of the same species; they are the duration of the act, its intensity, its degree, the manner of carrying it out, the particular occasion, etc. 3. Other circum stances are mitigating (minuentes, moralitatem minuentes), be cause they palliate the malice of the act ; as, for example, want of advertence, etc. 87 Cf. Lugo, 1. c., and Sporer, 1. c. CONFESSION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SINS 167 The circumstances must be confessed : — I. If they change the species of the sin. This is the express teaching of the Council of Trent. Hence it is not enough to confess to stealing if the property of the Church has been taken ; for the stealing of a res sacra is not merely a sin of injustice but a theft from God and so a new sin. If a child curses its parents, it is not enough to mention that it cursed, for, since special rev erence is due to parents, the violation of that special reverence is a new sin. The following circumstances call for particular mention : — 1. The circumstance of the person who commits the sin, when with regard to the matter of the sin he is consecrated to God or bound by vow, as in sins against purity, or when he sins against the chastity of the married state, or when he stands in special spiritual relations towards those with whom he sins. If a man is consecrated to God by Holy Orders or the reli gious state and has to confess a sin against purity, he must men tion the circumstance of his state of life, since he has committed a double sin, one of impurity and another of sacrilege. Now those who are consecrated to God by Holy Orders or the reli gious state incur the special sin of sacrilege when they fall into impurity; the mere circumstance of the vow being simple or solemn does not constitute a new species, nor the fact of being bound to chastity by vows of religion as well as by Orders ; these added details need not be confessed. Many moralists teach also that those incur sacrilege who are bound by a private vow of chastity, and St. Alphonsus admits this opinion as probable. Hence all those who have sinned against purity make a full con fession when they confess the circumstance of the vow by which they are bound, without distinguishing whether the vow be private, solemn, simple, or that of Orders (votum solemne ordinis sacri). This is the doctrine of Lugo 38 and Lacroix ; 39 Sanchez,40 too, 38 Disp. 16, n. 146 et seq. 39 L. c. 1060, etc. 40 De matrimon. L. 7, Disp. 27 et seq. 168 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE defends this view on the ground that the solemn vow is in sub stance or in se not distinct from the simple vow. His authority seems to have won over many theologians to the same opinion. Gury also holds this view ; but the Ratisbon 41 and Roman 42 editions of his valuable manual reject it in the notes. Lehm- kuhl,43 moreover, opposes it and teaches that to incur a personal sacrilege (and this is the question under discussion) the person sinning (or with whom the sin has been committed) must be consecrated to God puUica auctoritate, i.e. by Holy Orders or by vows of religion. Hence by the violation of a private vow of chastity a sacrilege in its strict and proper sense is not in curred, though a sin is committed against religion by the breach of fidelity to God. Sacrilege is incurred by the abuse of a sacred object. Now that cannot be called a sacred object which is privately consecrated to God without any recognition on the part of the properly constituted authorities. A private vow cannot produce this effect, for the common teaching of all theo logians, a few excepted, maintains that the breach of such a vow is a violation of fidelity, not of the reverence due to God, at least not in such a degree as to constitute a sacrilege strictly so called.44 Thus the more correct view is that of those who hold that, in confessing sins against purity, the circumstance of Holy Orders and of the religious vow is to be given; for who ever confesses as doubtful a circumstance which certainly changes the species of the sin does not fulfill the precept of con fession. Such may be the case, for instance, where a priest con ceals the circumstance of Holy Orders and mentions only the 41 Editio in Germania V (Ratisb. 1874), P. IT. Tract, de Confess, n. 492. 42 Gury-Ballerini, Ed. IX (Romse, 1887), P. II. Tract, de Confess, n. 492, Q. 12 et P. I. n. 286. 43 L. c. Tract. V. De Sacram. Poenit. Sect. II. cp. II. Confess, art. I. Sect. 2, n. 310, and P. I. L. I. Tract. II. cp. II. art. II. n. 385, and cp. III. art. II. n. 455. 44 Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. Q. 88, art. 3 ; Suarez, 1. c. n. 1 et seq., Tract. VI. 1. 5, c. 3, n. 2 et seq. CONFESSION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SINS 169 violation of the vow of chastity; for the violation of this vow is certainly a sacrilege for those in whom it has been solemnized by the reception of "Holy Orders," while that of the simple vow is only doubtfully so.45 Parish priests by scandalizing their flock, parents their chil dren, teachers the scholars under their instruction, incur a spe cial sin against charity. Such persons have in virtue of their office the strictest obligation to edify those intrusted to them and to keep them away from harm. The case of a confessor who gives scandal to a person who happens to be his penitent is different; but he is obliged to mention the circumstance of this relationship when he has given scandal in connection with the administration of the Sacrament; his office as confessor only imposes on him the strict duty of guiding the penitent safely in the Sacrament of Penance, and is only transitory, ending per se with each confession, while that of the parish priest and of the others mentioned above demands a constant spiritual care of those intrusted to them. Other offices involving authority do not change the species of the scandal given to subjects, though they may increase its malice, if, for example, a master leads his servant into sin. The dignity of a person does not of itself change the species of the sin of scandal given to his subjects, though it increases the gravity of a sin. If, however, a master has taken upon himself the duties of a parent, for instance, towards his servant-girl, he most certainly incurs a new and distinct sin by scandal given to her, and must mention his special relation to the girl. 2. The circumstance of the person with whom the sin has been committed, if God's honor has suffered in any way, or if the rights of a third person or the particular respect or love which is due to the said person have been violated. If the person with whom sin has been committed or who has 45 Cf. Gury, ed. Ratisbon, 1. c. 170 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE been led into sin is consecrated to God or bound by a vow re ferring to the matter of the sin, a new and special sin is incurred against the virtue of religion (i.e. a sin either of sacrilege or at least of a violation of the vow). If any one commit a sin of impurity with a relation, it is no longer merely a sin against purity, it is incest. It is a probable opinion that the penitent is not obliged to mention the exact degree of relationship whether by blood or marriage, since that does not change the species ratione incestus, except in the first degree either of blood-rela tionship or marriage connection; thus sin committed between father and daughter, mother and son, father-in-law and daugh ter-in-law, mother-in-law and son-in-law, must be mentioned along with the relationship; yet there is no doubt that ratione superioritatis vel pietatis sin incurred by a father writh his own daughter or his daughter-in-law, bears a different character from the sin of a son with his mother or mother-in-law. The sin of hatred acquires a new species of sinfulness when the hatred is directed against those more closely connected, e.g. parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, and against those connected by marriage in the first degree of the direct line, such as wife, godparents, and brothers. Hatred of those most nearly related may much more easily become a grievous sin than hatred of other people.46 3. The circumstance of place, if a sacrilege is thereby com mitted; thus (a) if a sacred object or something belonging to the property of the Church is stolen and taken out from a sacred building, a double sacrilege, real and local, is committed. The circumstance of the local sacrilege, that is, the fact that sin has been committed in the Church is not of itself gravely sinful; hence when a profane object which is merely accidentally in the Church is stolen, a sacrilege, though not a gravely sinful one, is added to the sin of theft.47 (6) If the immunity of a church 46 Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 298. 47 Gury-Ballerini, I. n. 286, and Lugo, De To3nit. Disp. 16, n. 466 sqq. CONFESSION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SINS 171 is violated; (c) if anything is done in a church by which it is polluted in the sense of the canon law ; (d) if profane occupa tions gravely at variance with the holiness of the place are carried on in the church, whether those occupations be in themselves sinful or not. 4. The circumstance of time; if, for instance, the time at which the sin took place was the reason why the action in ques tion has been forbidden, and if by the action done at some par ticular time a special offence is given to God. This circumstance might involve grave sin (a) if Good Friday were chosen for- the performance of an obscene play; (6) if during the forbidden time a marriage were celebrated with great pomp; (c) if dur ing the celebration of Mass or immediately after holy com munion, before the sacred species had time to be altered, the communicant were to commit some outrage greatly dishonoring to the Blessed Sacrament. These are circumstances which moralists generally enumerate as constituting a new species of sinfulness. On the other hand, -a sin committed on a Sunday or feast-day or on a communion-day is not per se invested with the particular malice of a sacrilege ; nevertheless the fact that a man relapses into his old sins on a confession or communion day gives ground for the suspicion that his last confession was de void of real contrition and in consequence invalid and sacri legious.48 5. Finally, the circumstance of the end in view is to be con fessed if it is in se mortally sinful; for instance, a -man who steals with the object of getting drunk is guilty of drunkenness as well as theft, and on that account must confess the purpose for which he stole.49 Now there are many penitents who cannot judge of the cir cumstances which change the nature of the sin; such must be 48 Cf. Lugo, De Poenit. Disp. 16, n. 213 sqq. 49 Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Tract. V. Sacr. Pcen. Sect. IT. cp. II. Couf. art. I. § 2, n. 308, and Th. M. Gen. Tract. I. cp. III. § 2, n. 31. 172 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE taught to mention in confession whatever increases or diminishes the malice of the sin ; the rest will be supplied by the confessor, for he has the duty of asking the penitent not only about the circumstances which affect the species of sin, but everything which he considers necessary to aid him in forming a correct judgment on the spiritual state of the penitent. This right im plies a duty on the part of the penitent to answer the questions put to him; these questions turn for the most part on habits of sin, relapses, and proximate occasions of sinning. Hence Inno cent XI condemned the proposition50 which denies the obliga tion of answering when the confessor makes inquiries about habits of sin. The knowledge of a habit of sin, or of relapses, or of proximate occasions is very important in settling wliethcr absolution should be given or deferred ; 51 besides it is of su preme importance to the confessor in his office as physician that he be in a position to suggest the necessary and proper means for amendment. The penitent must, therefore, if asked, men tion former sins though already confessed. No one need take offense because he is thus obliged per accidens to repeat sins which have already been duly forgiven; the purpose is not to pro nounce a new sentence upon them, but to enable the priest to form a correct judgment with regard to the sins just confessed by noting their relation to former sins, and thus to prescribe suitable means of correction and provide as much as possible against relapses.52 II. Those circumstances are also to be mentioned by which sins of their own nature venial become mortal (C. aggravantes) . Intemperance is not always a mortal sin, but it becomes so when it deprives a man of the use of reason; to steal a cheap 50 Propos. 58 damn. 51 See § 48, The Duty of the Confessor with regard to asking Questions. Compare §§ (54, 65. 52 Cf. Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. De Confess, cp. 3; Gury- Ballerini, 1. c. n. 485. CONFESSION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SINS 173 tool might of itself be only a venial sin, but if the loss of it deprives a poor artisan of the means of doing a day's work, it becomes mortal. In the same way one ought to mention the mitigating circumstances which make a mortal sin only venial or even no sin at all. Moralists give seven cases in which circumstances may change a venial into a mortal sin : — 1. Ratione consdentice erronecc, when a man through ignorance thinks a venial sin to be mortal. 2. Ratione scandali vel gravis damni, when grave scandal is given to one's neighbor, doing spiritual or temporal harm.; as, for instance, if a priest were to speak lightly of sacred things — thus St. Bernard 53 says : Nugce inter sceculares nugce, in ore sacerdotis blasphemice sunt; or, again, if a priest behaved lightly with a woman or were seen the worse for drink; or if one were to address a person rather insultingly, foreseeing that he would break out into a great rage and blas phemy ; or if a woman dress vainly and foresee that some young man at the sight of her will sin mortally by impious desires. 3. Ratione pravi finis graviter mali, when, for example, a small lie is told to lead a girl into sin. The evil intention may not only increase the guilt of a sinful action, but it will make an other wise innocent action sinful. 4. Ratione formalis contemptus legis vel superwris, when a venial sin is committed out of formal contempt for the law or lawgiver, or superior, as when a Catho lic on an abstinence day, and quite aware of the duty of abstain ing, eats ostentatiously a little flesh-meat to show the slight regard in which he holds the law.54 5. Ratione pravi affectus in rem alioqui leviter malam, when a man is so attached to 9, venial sin that he would commit it even if it were mortal, or in consequence of this attachment would be ready to commit other mortal sins,55 as, for instance, if a man chose rather to steal than 68 De considerat. II. 13. 54 Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. Q. 186, art 9 ad 3. 55 Cf. S. Thomas, I. II. Q. 88, art. 2. 174 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE to overcome his vanity or intemperance. 6. Ratione periculi sen occasionis proximo? in peccatum mortale labendi, when the venial sin is known, or can be known, as a proximate occasion of mortal sin; a man, for example, looks at a person of the other sex or entertains rather familiar relations with her though he knows that such conduct in his case is a proximate occasion of gravely sinful desires or actions. Even actions otherwise neutral or indifferent may for this reason become gravely sin ful. 7. Ratione cujuscunqm circumstantial quce mortalem in se malitiam contineat; thus insults, proceeding from envy and de sire of revenge, may be mortal sins.56 Hence these circum stances must be confessed. The following circumstances may make sins venial which are of their own nature mortal: 1. Smallness of matter; 2. Want of full advertence ; 3. Want of consent ; 4. A false conscience.57 These circumstances must be told in confession not in order to secure its integrity, but that the confessor may be able to form a correct judgment. III. Circumstances which make but little difference in the gravity of the sin need not be confessed. IV. Circumstances which aggravate a mortal sin within its own species to a notable degree (circumstantice notabiliter aggra- vantes intra eamdem speciem) need not per se loquendo be con fessed; this is the common and most approved teaching of theologians; other reasons may exist which make it expedient to mention these circumstances. At the same time theologians are not unanimous on this sub ject. Three opinions are current, and each one of them has its own probability and its champions of no mean repute. We may as well observe that the probability of the negative propo- 5(5 Cf. S. Thomas, T. IT. Q. 88, art. 5; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 59-63; Gury- Dumas, I. n. 153; Scavini, I. n. 734. 5? Cf. S. Thomas, I. II. Q. 88, art. 1 et 2 ; S. Alph. 1. c. n. 54; Gury- Duinas, 1. c. CONFESSION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SINS 175 sit ion (that there is no obligation) is conceded even by its opponents; hence all grant (ex omnium sententia) as probable that no one is bound to confess these circumstances, so that a penitent cannot be forced to disclose them unless some exceptional case should call for their mention.58 Those who maintain the affirmative proposition (i.e. the duty of confessing the circumstantial notabiliter aggravantes) fall back on the reasons to which the Council of Trent appeals for the necessity of confessing circumstantias speciem mutantes, viz. in order that the confessor may make a correct judgment, impose a suitable penance, and suggest the proper means of help; for, they add, the drcumstantice notabiliter aggravantes exercise a great influence on the view of the case taken by the confessor, and on that account ought to be confessed. The fact of the Council denning that only the drcumstantice speciem mutantes need be disclosed might be easily explained by supposing that the Council denned only what was certain, and left theological views where they were, neither approving nor condemning them. The last conclusion, however, is not justified, for the Council prescribes that circumstantial speciem mutantes should be con fessed without determining any precept for the aggravantes, and if equally cogent reason had existed for confessing both classes of circumstances, there could have been no reason for restricting the doctrine to those which change the species; for, says Lugo,59 it ought to have made the decree to embrace both classes without imposing any limiting clause. Further demonstration is taken from the Rituale Romanum, which directs: "If a penitent has not confessed the number, species, and circumstances which ought to be given, the con fessor must ask him." By the word species should be under- 68 On this controversy see, in addition to S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 468-471 and Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 16, Sect. 3, Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. I (de integr. mat.), n. 352-365. 59 De Po3iiit. Disp. 16, n. 115. 176 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE stood the circwnstantice speciem mutantes, and by the rest the circumstantial notabiliter aggravantes. This distinction, however, is unfounded, for by species is meant species ex parte objecti, such as stealing, impurity, etc., and under circumstantial necessarian the circumstantice speciem mutantes or the species ex parte cir- cumstantiarum, as when theft becomes a sacrilege, etc.60 Appeal is made also to the Catechismus Romanus, which directs that those circumstances should be confessed "which greatly increase or diminish the malice." 61 It may be ob jected to this, however, that the context makes it clear that there is no necessity to interpret the passage as referring to cir cumstances which merely increase the degree, not the kind, of the guilt ; for the Catechism continues thus : Many circum stances are so serious that in them alone lies the whole gravity of the sin, so that they ought to be confessed; but the only cir cumstances which can make a sin grave are those that change the moral or theological species. This is confirmed by the fact that the Ritual prescribes also that circumstances very notably diminishing the gravity of the sin should be revealed; for even the opponents grant that this has force only when the mitigat ing circumstances change the species.62 Moreover, the Catechism illustrates its doctrine by declaring the necessity of mention ing the circumstance of "a person consecrated to God" in a case of murder, and the circumstance of " marriage" in the case of impurity; and these belong to the circumstances which change the moral species. Finally, if the Catechism adduces the example of a theft, it is no proof that the question is not of circumstances which change tne species, and when it declares that one who has stolen one gold piece is less guilty than another who has stolen a hundred pieces this may easily be understood of a circumstance which (with regard to the absolute quantity) 60 Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. De Poenit. P. II. cp. III. art. 3, n. 192. 61 P. IT. De Poenit. cp. 5, n. 47. 62 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 468 ad prob. 3 ex ratione. I CONFESSION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SINS 177 constitutes a venial guilt and so introduces a distinct theologi cal species.63 This view is held, among others, by Suarez, Sanchez, Gonet, Lacroix. Other theologians teach that there is no necessity of confess ing circumstantias notabiliter aggravantes , but they make an exception with regard to the circumstance of quantity in cases of theft. St. Alphonsus, along with other theologians, how ever, is of opinion that this exception ought not to be granted if the quantity is described as being large ; for from that the con fessor can per se make a sufficiently accurate judgment. Bal- lerini remarks very justly that the exception should be worded thus : Except when some additional reason exists, e.g. a reserva tion directed against a certain kind of incest or against the theft of some given amount. The third opinion denies absolutely the necessity of confess ing circumstantias notabiliter aggravantes, and this is the more common and probable view, for which there are many and weighty reasons. (a) The Council of Trent by positively limiting its decision to those circumstances which change the species seems to exclude positively the obligation of confessing others. It teaches that circumstances must be mentioned because without them the sins would not be properly confessed by the penitents nor properly understood by the judge, so that he would be incapable of esti mating correctly the gravity of the sins and of imposing a be coming penance. From these words of the Council it is fair to conclude that the penitent has done all that is necessary when he confesses those circumstances. (b) Moreover, we are bound only to declare mortal sin; now the circumstantial notabiliter aggravantes within the same species evidently add no new species of a mortal sin, hence they need 63 Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. P. TT. cp. 2, art. TT. n. 481 ; Aertnys, 1. c. 178 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE not be confessed. To confess them is an act of perfection, good, of course, and wholesome, just as is the practice of con fessing venial sins. (c) Moreover, many consequences of no small importance follow from the opposite doctrine. While the present opinion is calculated to set at rest the minds of both penitent and con fessor, the other has quite the opposite tendency, for who could even approximately gauge how far circumstances have a notable effect upon the sin? Imagine the difficult and often fruitless inquiries a confessor would have to make with many of his peni tents in order to come to a satisfactory decision. It follows, besides, from the opposite view that the circumstanticc notabiliter minuentes would have to be confessed or else the confessor would consider some sin more serious than it actually was, and even our opponents grant that this is not necessary. (d) Finally, the Church could not in the General Council deduce this obligation from the words of Christ, otherwise she would not have given that definite limit to the obligation; the law of confessing circumstantice notabiliter aggravantes is, there fore, at least doubtful, and a doubtful law has no binding force. Hence this opinion may be adopted in praxi with a safe con science even though its opposite be probable, and whoever fol lows it does not expose the Sacrament to any danger of nullity, for to secure validity a formally entire confession is sufficient, and of that there is no doubt. This view is taught by St. Thomas (in 4 Sentent. d. 16, Q. 3, art. 2 et Opusc. 7, Q. 6), St. Antoninus, St. Bonaventura, St. Bernardine, Lugo, Vasquez, Bonacina, Salmanticenses, and the greater number of the older theologians. Among the more recent it is quite the common doctrine; compare Gury and the different editors of his text-book, among whom Ballerini is strongly in favor of this opinion, Miiller, Lehmkuhl, Aertnys, Mark, Konings, Simar, Kenrick, Gousset, Pruner, Ninzatti, etc. It is, however, advisable to mention these circumstances, and it is necessary : — CONFESSION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SINS 179 (a) When they affect the jurisdiction of the confessor, as in the case of a censure or reservation. If one has struck a cleric, for instance, it should be mentioned whether the assault was notorious or not; in the former case it would be reserved to the Pope, in the latter to the bishop ; also if the person struck were a cardinal, a bishop, apostolic nuncio, or other cleric, since the excommunication is reserved in a special manner to the Pope. (6) When they affect the character, in law or justice, of im portant acts, as espousals, various contracts, restitution, etc., in order that the penitent may receive proper instruction; this is most important in cases of theft. (c) When, finally, the confessor without a knowledge of these circumstances is unable to direct his penitent as required for his salvation. Since these circumstances must be confessed, not because they are circumstantice notabiliter aggravantes, but on the grounds alleged, the confessor has a right to question about them and the penitent is obliged to answer as we have already observed. Moreover, the faithful usually add these circumstances in confession because it gives greater peace of heart and more abundant fruit; besides, a better and safer guidance is thus secured and an opportunity of practicing humility. As to the utility and advisability of confessing circumstances all theologians agree in making an exception with regard to sins against the sixth commandment; for beyond what is necessary to determine the species of the sin the confessor ought not to ask the penitent any further question nor allow him to make any further statement. Even with regard to the species theo logians all teach with one accord that in so dangerous a matter where scandal may so easily be given one may at times refrain from inquiring into the species.64 Cedreno gives useful advice for the confession of the circum- 64 Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. n. 484, nota c. 180 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE stances attending sin: "If the person with whom you have sinned, the place where the sin was committed, or the manner of its accomplishment, or any other detail, gives you special remorse, then mention that point, for it will then be the con fessor's duty to decide from these indications how far they affect the species of the sin or only increase its gravity." 25. The Confession of Doubtful Sins. There are three points of view from which a sin may be re garded as doubtful : - 1. With regard to the existence of the sinful action, as when a man doubts whether he really committed the action. 2. With regard to the quality of the sin, as when a man knows he has sinned, but doubts whether it is a mortal or a venial sin. 3. With regard to the confession of a sin, as when a man knows he sinned grievously but doubts whether he ever con fessed his sin. The doubt may be positive or negative. A negative doubt exists when no solid reason can be given either pro or con, but only insignificant arguments for both sides, so that no decision can be arrived at. A positive doubt exists where two contra dictory propositions have each solid reasons in their support. Armed with these premises we are now in a position to set forth the doctrine with regard to the confession of doubtful sins. I. A sin need not be confessed when there is no positive reason to suspect its existence or gravity, or when there is positive ground against believing its existence or gravity, even where there is a solid reason on the other side. In other words, a sin negatively doubtful from both points of view, or positively doubtful from both points of view, or negatively doubtful on the side affirming guilt is not necessary matter of confession; but a sin positively doubtful on the side affirming guilt and only negatively doubtful on the side denying guilt, must be con fessed. THE CONFESSION OF DOUBTFUL SINS 181 With the exception of a few rigorists, theologians are unani mous in teaching that a sin positively doubtful from both sides need not be confessed ; for if there is a dubium facti which estab lishes the obligation of a law, liberty is in possession, i.e. there is no obligation. But in our case the fact of the sin is doubtful, thus we are not obliged to confess it. Moreover, when the existence of a law is doubtful we are not bound by it ; but the law of confessing doubtful sins is uncertain ; hence we are not bound by it. If, however, a man in danger of death doubted whether he had committed a grievous sin, knowing that he had never been to confession since that doubtful act, he would be obliged, in order to avoid the risk of damnation, not indeed to confess that sin, but either to receive the Sacrament of Penance, in which he confesses other sins, that thus he might receive at least indirect absolution if his doubtful sins were really mortal, or he should at least make an act of perfect contrition. In such a case the act of perfect contrition sine voto confitendi would be sufficient, since no obligation binds him to confess the peccata dubia.G5 So much for sins which are positively doubtful on both sides. If, however, a very strong argument affirms our guilt with only very slight reason to deny it, we are obliged, according to the unanimous teaching of theologians, to confess those doubtful sins, for in such a case the conviction of our inno cence does not rest on solid grounds. Of course our guilt is not conclusively proved; but in these things where evidence is often wanting we must be led by principles of sound moral certainty, even when they are unfavorable to us, since confes sion is not only a burden, but a Sacrament, and as such a means for greater sanctification.66 In this case one cannot 65 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 473 and II. A. n. 30; Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. 1. Q. IV. de Conf. cp. 4. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. (de peccatis dubiis) n. 374. 66 Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 58. 182 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE argue that in dubio facti (and this undoubtedly exists) the oppos ing arguments cancel one another, as might two opposing wit nesses; for this only takes place when the two arguments are of the same kind and quite similar, as in the case of two opposing eye-witnesses, when it is certain that one of the two is mistaken and neither can be believed since it is not known where the mis take lies. It is quite different, however, when the opposing reasons are of distinct classes and unlike, as in the case of two witnesses who do not recount what they themselves have seen, but bear witness to various conjectures pro and con; then they both deserve reasonable attention, since the conjectures on either side rest on different motives. If a penitent doubts positively whether he has sinned in some action, and it is probable that advertence or consent, etc., was wanting, or that full deliberation or consent was absent, he is not obliged to accuse himself of this action in confession. On the other hand, theologians are not so clear as to the obli gation of confessing sins which are doubtful dubio negativo pro utraque parte. The older theologians, among whom St. Thomas and other eminent doctors are to be found (Sanchez enumerates forty), insist on the duty of confessing this class of doubtful sins. This opinion is founded on the decree of the Council of Trent declaring that all grave sins quorum conscientiam habent (sc. pcenitentes) must be confessed; thus the penitent must con fess the sins as they are in themselves, those which are certain as certain and those which are doubtful as doubtful. This is the general and constant practice of the faithful, and by that fact we may consider it as proceeding from Christ's institution.67 Other theologians, of no small weight both by their number and authority, do not impose the obligation of confessing these doubtful sins. St. Alphonsus also defended this view in a very convincing manner on internal grounds. The Council of Trent 67 Compare in particular Sanchez, Snavez, Lugo, Laymanu, Sporer, etc. TITE CONFESSION OF DOUBTFUL SINS 183 binds penitents only to reveal those sins quorum conscientiam habent; it says nothing about uti sunt in conscientia, or telling undoubted sins as certain and doubtful as doubtful, but only quorum conscientiam habent, which means those of which they have certain knowledge; for, according to St. Bernard, con scientia is nothing more than cordis scientia and judicium practi- cum on the sins incurred. Now doubtful knowledge is neither knowledge (scientia) nor a judgment (judicium), but a suspensio judicii; hence no one can have a conscientia peccati who has no proof that he has incurred sin. This is the answer to the argu ments of the first opinion. Weight is added to this answer by the very words of the same Council: "It is well known that in the Church of God nothing more is demanded of the penitents but that each one after diligent examination . . . confess those sins by which he is conscious to himself of having grievously offended his Lord and God; the remaining sins, however, which do not occur to him after diligent examination are considered as included generally in the same confession." Since, therefore, concludes the holy Doctor, the penitent is not bound to confess his venial sins, he is not bound to confess the doubtful ones, for the Council says he is not obliged to confess any but the mortal sins of which he has knowledge; but to doubt is not ato have knowledge," it is rather ato be wanting in knowledge." Moreover, an onus cerium ought not to be inflicted for a delictum dubium, and in the doubt whether the law exists there is no obli gation to observe the law. Finally, he who doubts without good foundation should not heed the doubt. The faithful, it is true, do confess these doubtful sins in order to gain peace and ease of conscience, but not because they are bound to do so ; it is also customary and general for them to confess those which are positively dubious, and no one holds that this is of obliga tion, not even our opponents. The grounds for this opinion, and the objections to the oppo site view, are so convincing that it may be regarded as the more 184 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE probable and be followed tuta conscientia.68 The following objec tion has no weight. Since confession is a necessary means for salvation, and since in such a case a man must take the safer means rather than trust to a probable opinion, he is thus obliged to confess peccata dubia. A distinction must be made. The Sacrament of Penance, and particularly the absolution in which its efficacy for the most part consists, may certainly be called a necessary means for salvation in re vel in voto with regard to those who have committed mortal sin after Baptism; besides, if a man doubt whether he has sinned grievously, either perfect contrition or absolution are necessary, and for that reason con fession also in so far as this is required to obtain valid abso lution or sanctifying grace through the absolution; but the integrity of confession can be regarded as necessary only in so far as it is proved to be the prescribed means of obtaining absolution licite et valide. The proof, however, for the necessity of confessing doubtful sins is so little substantiated that, as we have shown, the very opposite is proved from the words of the Council and the explanation of St. Alphonsus.69 When one considers the teaching of those older theologians who maintained the necessity of confessing mortalia negative dubia, it is not difficult to see that, while their mode of expression comprises more, yet, they really meant to say that a penitent is not to consider himself free from all obligation of confessing his sin for some paltry reason which is in his favor, though knowing at the same time that there are weighty reasons to be urged against him and his freedom from mortal sin.70 68 Nearly all the later theologians hold this doctrine. Ballerini (Not. ad Gury et Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 377) calls the opinion that one is obliged to confess peccata dubia downright false. Cf. M tiller, 1. c. Sect. 121 ; Lehrnkuhl, I. c. n. 317; Gury, 1. c. n. 477; Marc, 1. c. Tract. V. De Pcenit. Diss. II. cp. II. art. II. Sect. 1, n. 1695, etc. 69 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 317. 70 Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. ; Mazzotta, 1. c. De oris confessione, cp. 4. St. Al phonsus declares very precisely that St. Thomas' doctrine on this matter is THE CONFESSION OF DOUBTFUL SIN Hi 185 From this teaching it follows that he who has a negative doubt as to whether he sinned is not stride loquendo obliged to confess before communicating; but in order to make sure of the required dispositions he ought either to make an act of per fect contrition or receive sacramental absolution after confessing something which is included under materia certa.71 For the rest it is in practice generally recommended to the faithful, in order to secure peace of soul, to mention even their doubtful mortal sins, though there is no obligation to do so, and the confession without the accusation of these sins is complete; they must, however, be instructed to confess these sins as doubt ful and not as certain. If a penitent have only sins of this sort to accuse himself of, he has a right to conditional absolution on the first accusation of them. It is better, however, to add other certain matter as the sins of one's past life ; this is required if the absolution is to be unconditional. In practice the following rules might be profitably observed : — 1. If there be a doubt as to whether the matter of a sin be grave, ill-instructed penitents (pcenitentes rudes) should confess their doubts because (a) they cannot guide their own consciences, or they do so with great difficulty, and because (b) for the most part they do not know how to distinguish between mortal and venial sin. Exception, of course, is made for the scrupulous who are not in the habit of frequently committing mortal sin. Well- instructed penitents are certainly not obliged to confess doubt- not against us : " He does not speak of a penitent who after diligent exam ination of conscience comes to the conclusion that his sin is doubtfully mortal and then lays aside his doubt in accordance with the rule that there is no certain obligation where it is question of a doubtful transgression ; he is rather considering the case of the penitent who is certain that he has per formed a sinful act but cannot decide whether it was gravely sinful or not ; such a penitent is, of course, obliged to take pains to remove the doubt, and if he cannot settle he must submit it to the judgment of his confessor, whose office it is to distinguish between sin and sin." S. Alph. 1. c. n. 474 (fin.). 71 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 475. 186 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE ful mortal sins, since they are in a position to guide their own consciences; yet they are advised to do so, for then their con fessor is informed of the dangers to which his penitent is exposed and can warn, instruct, and free him from them. 2. If the doubt turns on the free consent of the will or full advertence, (a) penitents of timorous consciences, who do not ordinarily sin mortally, are in no way obliged to confess doubtful sins, for the presumption is in their favor: ex communiter con- tingentibus fit prudens prcesumptio. Since they are not in the habit of sinning mortally, it is fair to presume that their doubt ful sins are not mortal; indeed they ought not infrequently to be deterred from confessing them if they are inclined to scrupu losity. " A man of approved virtue who is worried as to whether he has consented to an impure temptation may be morally cer tain that he has not consented ; for it is morally impossible that a will so constant in good resolutions should change without giving unmistakable signs." 72 (6) Penitents who, though not timorous, are not lax are certainly not obliged to confess a doubt ful consent, though they may be advised to do so to secure peace of conscience and the other benefits which follow from the prac tice, (c) If, however, the penitent has a lax conscience, he is obliged to confess his doubtful sins, for the presumption is against him.73 If, then, a pious person who often renews his resolution never to sin mortally is not certain that he has ever revoked that resolution; if he is startled when he perceives the evil and promptly repels the temptation, and doubts whether he has given way; if he remembers that he was in an excited state of mind; if he cannot tell whether the thought or action took place in sleep or in waking moments, the presumption is that there was no full consent. The presumption, however, is against those who are accus- 72 Habert, t. 3 de consc. Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. n. 476. " Cf . S. Alph. 1. c. n. 476 ; Reuter, 1. c. P. IV. n. 306 ss. THE CONFESSION OF DOUBTFUL SINS 187 tomed to fall easily into grave sin; had' they withstood the temptation they would remember what effort they made to overcome it. Hence Lacroix 74 very justly concludes that such people never have a real negative doubt, since the presumption determines the probability of consent or resistance to the temp tation. Now comes the question as to what the penitent ought to do who has confessed a mortal sin as doubtful and afterwards discovers that he has certainly committed it; is he obliged to confess the sin anew or may he consider the case closed? The sin has undoubtedly been remitted directly by the power of the keys, since the conditional sentence "if thou hast really sinned" becomes absolute where the condition has been verified. St. Alphonsus 75 teaches that sins confessed as doubtful should be mentioned again as certain if it turns out that they are certain; and this doctrine he affirms to be the common opinion. The defenders of this view maintain as their great argument that the sin was not confessed as it was in the conscience at the moment when it was committed; then it was a peccatum cerium; more over, they argue, the sentence passed on a doubtful sin is quite different from that passed on a sin which is certain. Yet in the case of sins which have been confessed in round numbers St. Alphonsus himself teaches that even when the penitent afterwards recalls the exact number, he is not obliged to confess again; why, then, should this obligation be imposed on the penitent who has confessed his sin as doubtful when he discovers later that it was certain ? A man who has confessed that he has committed a mortal sin about ten times and later discovers that the number was twelve must either confess as certain the two or more sins which were previously confessed as doubtful, or, if this obligation is denied, he cannot be obliged to confess a sin again which he has discovered to be certain after having 74 Cf. Lacroix, 1. c. Lib. VI. P. 2, n. 612 ; S. Alph. 1. c. n. 476. 75 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 478. Cf. II. A. De Sacr. Poenit. cp. 3, n. 34. 188 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE already confessed it as doubtful. That in the first instance the penitent is free of all obligation to confess again, is the sententia communissima, and it is borne out by the practice of the faith ful ; hence in the other case the same freedom must be granted, for both decisions rest on the same grounds. Nor can it be objected that the number of the sins is merely a circumstance, while the sin itself is a substantial fact, for the number belongs to the very substance, since it indicates so many substantial acts.76 It is true that St. Alphonsus calls the affirmative opinion communis; but since Lugo (though even he gave his adhesion practically to the view of St. Alphonsus in consideration of the great number of theologians who favored it) has combated the view with strong arguments, later theologians adopted his side, so that the affirmative proposition maintaining the duty of confessing again can no longer be considered as communis. At present, as Ballerini aptly shows, the other view is the com- munior sententia and is established on good external and internal probability, and may be unhesitatingly considered as probabilior et communior.77 II. If a man is certain that he has committed a grave sin but doubts upon slight grounds whether he has confessed it, he must accuse himself of it; but if he has a sufficient probability that it has been confessed, he is under no obligation. In this case some positive reason is required to show that he has complied with the obligation of confessing the sin, for an undoubted command is not satisfied by a doubtful fulfilment; but where there is really good reason to suppose that the sin has been confessed, that is, a reason which, though open to 76 Lugo, 1. c. Disput. 16, n. 52, n. 87, n. 78. 77 Cf. Ballerini, Notse ad Gury, 1. c. n. 480, and Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 380 ss.; Lehrakuhl, 1. c. n. 318; Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. P. II. cp. 3, art. 3, n. 193, Q. 4; Miiller, 1. c. Lib. TIT. T. TT. Sect. 121, is wrong in call ing the affirmative opinion communissima et wra. THE CONFESSION OF DOUBTFUL SINS 189 some doubts, offers some probability, the obligation may, in accordance with the principles of probability, be regarded as not binding. "For if we are to avoid making laws and duties odious, we ought to concede something to human probability taken in a broad sense ; thus presumption in a case of this kind often presents proof of sufficient probability and security."78 Hence a man who is accustomed to make his confessions with care, and later on is unable to remember whether he has con fessed this or that sin, may presume that he has confessed it, and he is not obliged to confess it again. This is the teaching of many eminent theologians.79 Although St. Alphonsus af firms that a man is obliged to mention again a sin which has probably been already confessed, he does not condemn the contrary opinion. If, again, a man who has been converted from a habit of sin, and for a long period has been leading a good life, begins to doubt whether, in the confessions either general or particular which have been made with suitable care, some sin or circumstance has been withheld, he may be forbidden to mention that sin or circumstance, or even to think of the past at all. Finally, scrupulous people ought only to confess their past sins when they are quite certain that they have never con fessed them; this is the sententia communissima.80 78 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 319. Cf. Aertnys : In praxi, prozsumptio amoiet dubi- tationem; Ballerini, Op. Theol. MOT. 1. c. n. 379. 79 Suarez, Bonacina, Lugo, Salmanticenses, Lacroix, etc. 80 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 477. Thus the holy Doctor does not express a general obligation of confessing the sins in this case. In the Qucest. rec. reform, n. 16 he appeals from Suarez, Lugo, etc., to Concina, who, along with others, teaches the obligation of confession cum dubia sit confessio et certa sit con- fessionis obiigatio (see Vindicice Alphonsionce) . Meanwhile, as Ballerini shows, St. Alphonsus in the Roman edition of his Moral Theology of the year 1757, which is dedicated to Benedict XIV, releases the penitent from the obligation of repeating the confession ut etiam communiter dicunt Suarez, Sanchez, Lugo, etc., etc. And Lugo writes (De Pcenit. Disp. 16, n. 58) : Communiter docent omnes non teneri (quempiam} ad confitendum, illud (pecca- tnm) quod probab'diter judicat se . . . confessum jam fuisse. Cf. n. 59, where the same subject is treated of: nihil frequentius apud theologos, etc. Hence 190 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE On the whole it is recommended in practice to mention doubt fully confessed sins, because their confession helps much to peace of soul and allays all anxieties. Quite distinct from the preceding question is the case in which a man fully confesses as certain some sin which he has com mitted, but which neither he nor the confessor considered at the time as a mortal sin ; if afterwards, in consequence of better instruction or advice, he discovers that the sin was mortal ex genere suo, he is not obliged to repeat it, for it was already per fectly confessed and it is not necessary for the validity of con fession that the penitent or confessor should know that the matter of a sin is grave, and it is the matter only that is involved in this case.81 III. The sins which have been incurred after a doubtfully valid Baptism must be confessed when Baptism is given con ditionally. Lehrnkuhl treats very fully of this question and remarks that on this point there can be no doubt after the late decisions of the Apostolic See. Many theologians were inclined to free converts from the obligation of making a confession of their sins on the ground that, their Baptism by a heretical min ister being doubtful, the sins committed after Baptism were doubtful matter for confession; hence they thought that to such converts, if they confessed matter sufficient in any way for receiving validly the Sacrament or the grace of sanctification through the Sacrament, absolution might be given conditionally ; the sententia communis of theologians is that within the given limits there is no obligation, so that Ballerini justly exclaims: ''Who would not rather abide by St. Alphonsus when he follows those great theological luminaries than when he clings to Concina ! " " And has Concina thereby taught any thing new? Indeed, since the whole question rests on a general principle, are we to rate so low the common teaching of such great theologians as to grant the privilege of clearer intuition to the judgment of the rigorist Con cina?" Ballerini, Notae ad Gury, 1. c. n. 479. Cf. Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 382 ss. 81 S. Alph. i. c. n. 478 ; Sanchez, 1. c. Lib. I. c. 10, n. 69 ; Suarez, 1. c., etc. Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. n. 193, Q. 4. THE CONFESSION OF DOUBTFUL SINS 191 this, they maintained, was the practice to be recommended in order that converts might not be obliged in the beginning of their conversion to undergo this often very severe ordeal of a confession of a lifetime. In answer to repeated questions the Apostolic See (in the years 1715 and 1868) explicitly declared that converts who receive conditional Baptism must after receiving this conditional Baptism confess the sins of their past life and be absolved from them sub conditione. This decision was given of course as an answer to a particular case laid before the tribunal; but the intention of the Holy Office, as is quite clear, was to pass a sen tence and give a universal decision which might apply to all cases falling under this head and which might be regarded in future as the law on the matter, for this decree can be regarded only as an authentic interpretation of the divine law by the Head of the Church, and not as a local law of the Church or a part of her discipline. Nor need any one be surprised that a decree, though particular in form, has a universal application; for a command of the Church will never prescribe anything as necessary matter of confession which is not in accordance with the divine law.82 In order, then, to recognize the possibility that such a precept is contained in the decree of 1715 it must be granted that, in accordance with divine right, the sins incurred after doubtfully valid Baptism must be submitted to the keys. Such is what we learn from that positive declaration ; moreover, reason confirms it, for, though one who is doubtfully baptized has not a certainty but only a probability of receiving sacra mental absolution of his sins, it in no way follows that the obligation to confess them is only probable and practically to be disregarded; for the duty of confessing and performing the assigned penance is for all more certain than that probability of receiving the effects of the Sacrament. This does not go *2 Cf. S. Antonin. Summa, P. III. Tit. 14, c. 19, § 14. 192 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE beyond a moral certainty taken in the wider sense, since it rests ultimately on the validity of the Baptism and other conditions, so that doubts can always be entertained about it. But the duty of confessing and performing the assigned penance permits no such doubt, since every obligation though it be based on grounds only morally certain is sufficiently evident; otherwise there would be an end of anything like obligation in human affairs. Now with regard to confession and absolution of sins in the tribunal of penance Christ has handed over all power to the jurisdiction of the Church, and it is by Baptism that men come under this jurisdiction; this is the external rite by which men are admitted as members. But no one doubts that a man remains subject to the jurisdiction of a social body into which he has been admitted by the acknowledged external rites till that reception is proved to be invalid. All, therefore, who have in any way received Baptism (which they were desirous of re ceiving validly, though its validity admits of doubt) are as a general rule undeniably and certainly subject to the Church's jurisdiction and laws and are bound to comply with the divine precept which ordains that their sins should be told in confession and sentence passed upon them. In other words, the doubt with regard to Baptism has this effect, that the Baptism can be regarded as invalid in the sense that -it can and ought to be repeated conditionally lest the man should risk his eternal sal vation, but nowise in the sense that one who is doubtfully bap tized may consider himself free from the observance of these precepts and obligations which are binding on the baptized by the ordinance of God or the Church; among these duties the precept of confessing sins holds the principal place.83 83 Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 321 ss. ; Aertnys, 1. c. De Pcenitent. Art. III. Confessio, n. 187, Q. 1, and Acta S. Sedis, Vol. 4, p. 320. Cf. the note of Fr. Haringer, C.SS.R., to St. Alphonsus' Moral Theology, Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Pcenit. n. 488; Wilmers, Lehrbuch der Religion, Fourth Edition, 1886, Vol. IV. § 74, p. 674. SINS OMITTED WITHOUT FAULT 193 As to the ceremonies to be observed in receiving a convert into the Church, there is nothing to prevent the confession being made first, followed by the conditional Baptism, then a summary repetition of the accusation along with an act of contrition and the conditional absolution. This order is allowed by the Holy Office in a Rescript of November, 1875. The American Ritual, on the other hand, gives the following order: 1. Renunciation of heresy and profession of faith; 2. Conditional Baptism; 3. Confession with conditional absolution. This order was pre scribed by the instruction of the Holy Office for North America.84 26. Sins Omitted through Forgetfulness or other Causes not Blameworthy. In order that the principles to be applied here may be under stood, it must first be observed that all grievous sins committed after Baptism must be confessed ; hence what has been said of the material and formal integrity of confession as well as upon the distinction between sins directly and indirectly remitted must be carefully borne in mind. Since the formal or subjective integrity of confession consists in this, that all mortal sins are mentioned which the penitent can recall after a diligent examination of conscience, and of which the enumeration is possible hie et nunc, it does not suffer by inculpable forgetfulness on the part of the penitent ; and the same holds true of all other legitimate reasons which at any time excuse the penitent from objective integrity.85 Sins which are required for objective though not for subjec tive integrity are considered as included in the confession and are really remitted by the absolution, not directly, however, but only indirectly. Hence are derived the following principles : - I. Mortal sins omitted without fault are and remain materia 84 Cf. Appendix ad Condi, plen. Baltim. II. in Collect. Lac. T. III. col. 550. 85 See § 27. 194 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE necessaria of confession, or the objective duty of confessing them remains binding as before. These sins are, of course, really forgiven, but, as we have already observed, only indirectly or per concomitantiam through their connection with the other mortal sins which have been confessed and directly remitted. In the Sacrament of Penance the remission of sins is effected by the absolution; but sins which have not been mentioned do not directly fall under the absolution since, properly speaking, they are unaffected by the sentence pronounced by a judge who knew nothing about them. Nevertheless the absolution pronounced rite et valide over cer tain sins is effectual because it is sacramental and because in God's providence no remission of sin takes place without an influx of sanctifying grace into the soul which presents no obex. Now sanctifying grace removes the whole reatus culpce mortalis and restores a man to perfect friendship with God and to his claim in the heavenly kingdom. Thus valid absolution pro duces sanctifying grace in the soul and consequently the remis sion of all mortal sins staining the soul, even those inculpably forgotten. There remains now the precept of Our Lord to submit all mortal sins to the power of the keys in the Sacrament of Pen ance; these forgotten sins have not been confessed as yet, nor has the priest pronounced any direct sentence upon them. Though these sins have been remitted indirectly, there still remains the obligation ex jure divino of confessing them directly to the judge in the tribunal of penance when they occur to the mind again, not because these sins have been revived, but be cause the neglect of God's command in the matter would involve a new sin. This holds of all mortal sins inculpably omitted, of their species, of all circumstances changing the species, as well as of mortal sins, confessed indeed, but to a priest without jurisdiction who either bona fide or for reasonable motives gave direct absolution of the sins for which he had faculties, thereby SINS OMITTED WITHOUT FAULT 195 remitting the others indirectly. Hence Alexander VII con demned the proposition: "Sins which have been omitted in confession either from an imminent danger to life or for any other motive need not be mentioned in the following confes sion." (Prop. XL damn.) It is different, however, in the case of reservation or censure for a sin remitted indirectly if confes sion be made to a priest equipped with the necessary faculties; for in general absolution is given from reservation and censure, and the penitent is probably freed from the reservation or cen sure attached to the sin forgotten ; so that if the sin occur again to his mind, he may be directly absolved by any confessor, even a confessarius simplex.86 II. The obligation of confessing these forgotten sins does not urge ratione sui "as soon as possible" (quam primum), not even before receiving holy communion. Of course many distinguished theologians 87 teach that who ever remembers a grave sin, even though not committed since the last confession but forgotten, must confess that sin and receive absolution before going to communion. The only reason urged is that he is conscious of this sin ; and, according to the Council of Trent, no one who is conscious of grave sin may receive communion before having confessed where there is an opportunity of making the confession. The defenders of this view maintain that the Tridentine decree 88 is so expounded and understood by the whole Church ; they make an exception, how ever, for the case where confession cannot be made without risk of scandal or infamy, as, for example, when a priest is already celebrating Mass or a layman has approached the communion- rail and cannot retire without exciting remark. 86 Cf. Mazzotta, 1. c. De Oris Confess, cp. 5 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 323 s. ; Gury-Baller. II. De Pcen. n. 494 s. 87 Lugo, De Euchar. n. 126 ; Suarez, Disputat. GO s. 3 ; Lacroix, n. 539 ; Salmanticenses, De Each. c. 7, p. 3, n. 30, etc. 88 Sess. XIII. cp. 7. 196 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE It is permissible, however, with St. Alphonsus and other theologians (in less number) to follow the other "very probable opinion" which denies the obligation of confessing; for in reality confession has preceded communion and the penitent has con fessed all the sins of which he was conscious, so that neither the Council of Trent nor the divine law seems to demand more; moreover, the forgotten sin has been remitted indirectly, the penitent is in the state of grace, not merely by an act of contri tion but in virtue of the valid confession. The practice of the faithful which is appealed to for the opposite side is not to fee regarded as of binding force, but rather a pious and praiseworthy custom. Though one may follow tuta conscientia the opinion which denies the obligation, it is good to recommend to the faithful to confess before communion the sins which have been forgotten, unless the extremely sensitive conscience of the penitent should require another course to be adopted; the practice should not, however, be imposed as binding.89 The view held by some, though a very few, modern theo logians, that it is quite sufficient to mention these sins without receiving absolution, is not at all in harmony with the divine institution of the Sacrament, for confession is not made with the view of acquainting the priest with the sins committed, but in order that they may be remitted by his judicial sentence. Hence a serious argument for the necessity of confession can be drawn only from the supposition that absolution is necessary. Accordingly a penitent who confesses a new mortal sin immedi ately after absolution must be absolved again. Of course this absolution may be put off to the next confession if the penitent comes again to the same confessor to whom he told the sin. Such delay, however, would hardly be recommended, since it 89 S. Alph. 1. c. Lib. VI. Tract. III. De Euchar. cp. II. Dub. II. n. 257; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 325 ; Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Euchar. Art. III. n. 98, Q. II. SINS OMITTED WITHOUT FAULT 197 would involve the penitent in the following dilemma: Either he is not free to choose his confessor on the next occasion on which he approaches the Sacrament, or if he goes to some other priest he must confess the same sin again. III. The duty of confessing sins inculpably omitted must be fulfilled either when there is danger of death or at the next confession, whether it be a confession of duty or of choice. Hence these omitted sins must be confessed, even if no new mortal sin has been incurred, ratione sui when there is grave danger of death and at the time which the Church prescribes for the yearly confession ; for the annual confession is prescribed not only in order to obtain sanctifying grace, but also to fulfill the divine law, more clearly defined by the law of the Church. In this case the precept would be binding under grave sin because of the presence of materia necessaria, for a mortal sin omitted even without fault is materia necessaria. If, however, a confession be made before that time, either of materia necessaria or materia libera, the confession must include the previously omitted sin. This is so evident that no theolo gian ever dreamt of disputing or doubting it. Every confession must be complete subjectively or formally, and by the declara tion of the Council of Trent this confession is not complete unless it includes the sins previously omitted. For this subjective integrity it is required that all mortal sins not yet subjected to the keys which occur to the penitent should be confessed unless some legitimate obstacle stands in the way. If these omitted sins are kept back in the next confession following, that con fession is incomplete and sacrilegious. It cannot be argued that these sins had been already indirectly forgiven, for, to speak of no other objection, the same might.be urged of sins already condoned by an act of perfect contrition.90 90 Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. n. 495 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 326. 198 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE 27. Reasons Excusing from Complete Accusation. In the preceding paragraph we said that sins may be omitted by the penitent without the confession becoming sacrilegious. As there are reasons which can justify such silence, and release the penitent from the obligation of confessing the sins of which he is conscious, we devote this paragraph to the consideration of these reasons. I. No difficulty in the confession itself or internally connected with it ever excuses from making a complete accusation; for when Christ gave the precept that all grievous sins should be confessed to His representatives in the tribunal of penance, He intended that we should submit to the difficulties inherent in such an accusation and bear them as a penance for our sins, and this discipline is very wholesome for the penitent. A difficulty of this kind would be, for instance, the great shame felt in confessing a sin, even if it came only from the fact of mentioning it to this or that particular priest ; the course then to be adopted is to put off the confession, or to go to another confessor, or to be brave and overcome the shame. This dif ficulty was recognized in the Council of Trent, and hence it was declared that the difficulty of such a (perfect and candid) con fession and the shame of declaring one's sins might well seem great obstacles, but that they were counterbalanced by the consolation and profit accruing to those who received the Sac rament worthily.91 The same may be said of the other diffi culties, such as the fear of losing the esteem of one's confessor or of receiving a rebuke from him. If such reasons as these could be held to justify a want of integrity in the accusation, the faithful for the most part would consider themselves at liberty to make incomplete confessions, and the great object for which this Sacrament had been instituted would to a great extent be frustrated.92 91 Sess. XIII. cp. 5. 9'2 Cf. Gury, 1. c. n. 497: Aertnys, 1. c. n. 104; and Lehmkuhl, 1. c. art. III. n.3'27. REASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 199 Likewise, a large gathering of penitents (concursus magnus pcenitentium) on the occasion of a great feast or indulgence is never a reason for want of integrity in confession, for this is not a case of necessity and it would expose the priest to the risk of giving absolution to ill-disposed subjects. Nor can excep tion be made to the rule of integrity because people might con jecture from the time taken in the confessional that the penitent had committed very many sins.93 II. Besides the case of physical impossibility, however, there are others which justify an incomplete avowal of sin; they are in general such external or accidental difficulties in connection with the confession which render a complete accusation mor ally impossible, or involve grave harm to the penitent or the confessor. When the impediment no longer exists the law of God comes again into force; the moral impossibility of mak ing a complete confession does not altogether cancel the duty of making it, but only suspends it, since the precept of confes sion is not one that is confined to any fixed time or state, but extends over one's lifetime; hence mortal sins which have not been confessed must be mentioned later when opportunity offers. III. In order that the excuse of moral impossibility may be pleaded it is necessary, 1, that there should be a real or probable risk of great harm; 2, that it is impossible to find another con fessor to whom a full disclosure may be made without fear of this particular harm; 3, that only those sins or circumstances be kept back of which the avowal would cause harm; and finally, 4, that the confession cannot be put off. IV. Physical impossibility might result from, 1, inculpable forgetfulness or inculpable ignorance, or only venially culpable ignorance and forgetfulness. A man who is ignorant invinci- biliter et inculpabiliter that the particular act which he calls to 93 S. Alph. 1. c. L. VF. n. 485. 200 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE mind is sinful, or does not know that his sin must be confessed with its number and species and circumstances changing the species, is not bound to integrity in confession; there is still less obligation on an uneducated and weak-minded penitent. If, again, a man in examining his conscience cannot recall a past sin, or, having recalled it, forgets about it in the confessional, he is physically incapable of making a complete confession. (On this point see the preceding paragraph.) It is to be noticed, however, that in the case of gravely culpable negligence or care lessness in examining the conscience an imperfect confession is invalid ; if, for example, a man through his own fault is ignorant how confession ought to be made, or was unwilling to make a careful examination of his conscience. On the other hand, one is not obliged to go to confession sooner in order not to forget past sins, though frequent confession is much to be recommended ; for we are bound only to accuse ourselves of the sins of which we are conscious at the time of confession after making a dili gent examination of conscience. 2. There is, moreover, physical inability when there is immi nent danger of death (a) on account of the penitent's condition being such that if he should try to make a complete confession he may die before receiving absolution ; (b) in a common danger, such as shipwreck, before a battle, during a violent epidemic or a swift conflagration. If in such a case there is no time to hear the confession of each individual, it is enough for all to make a general confession of their sins in order to receive absolu tion, and the priest may give it, using for all the one formula: Ego vos absolve. . . . Finally, (c) when the confessor himself is near death and no other priest is at hand. The following instructions may be observed by confessors in actual practice : — (a) In case of extreme necessity the accusation of some spe cific sin must be made so far as it is possible, but in the case of a dying man who is still conscious the confessor should be more REASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 201 solicitous about exciting contrition than about securing a com plete confession; in the case, however, of a penitent deprived of consciousness, especially if he gave no previous sign of repent ance, the confessor may give absolution conditionally and then devote his care to the administration of Extreme Unction, which in such a case is more certainly valid and efficacious than the absolution itself ; meanwhile, however, there would be no reason for not giving the absolution beforehand. (b) If only one confession has to be heard and there is immi nent danger, say, from an attack by an enemy, the confessor should get the penitent to mention some one sin, to make an act of contrition, and he should then absolve him, when under the circumstances the absolution is a matter of necessity. If there are several who wish to make their peace with God, as before a battle or in a shipwreck, the following points are to . be observed : — (a) If the danger is very pressing, the confessor must exhort all to make acts of contrition and purpose of amendment, or, still better, himself make along with them acts of contrition and amendment, and get them to give some sign of their sorrow and their self-accusation, as by raising their hands or striking their breasts; then he may give them absolution in a body.94 (13) If there is time enough for each one to approach the con fessor, though not for making a complete confession, they should be admitted singly in order the better to secure the • salvation of each one, in such numbers as the time will permit ; and in order that as many as possible, if not all, may be heard, the accusation may be as short as possible; thus contrition will be more genuine. Of course the penitents will be told that in the event of their lives being spared they must make up what was wanting to the integrity of the confession.95 94 Renter, Theol. Moral. Quadripartita, Tom. IV. Tract. V. Q. IX. n. 331, exempl. 95 Reuter, 1. c. n. 331, exempl. 5 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 329. 202 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE 3. Physical inability may also arise from the defectus loquelce of the dumb who cannot make a complete confession either by writing or by signs. For them it is sufficient if they confess one or other sin by signs. If the defect be only a stutter, the peni tent must confess as best he can.96 4. The defectus auditus of the deaf who cannot express them selves nor hear the questions which the confessor must put in order that the confession may be complete, can be reckoned as a physical inability. They are obliged to make a perfect con fession ex sua parte, i.e. to mention all that so far as they know is required for a perfect confession, and thus they may not keep back anything. Those who are merely hard of hearing are not on the same footing with the deaf; their confession should be made in a place where the voice may be raised without others overhearing what is said. If, however, the confessor should find out only in the course of the confession that the penitent is hard of hearing, and he cannot take him to a more retired place without fear of causing the bystanders to suspect that some grave sin has been confessed and so violating the seal, he may resign himself to permitting an imperfect confession and may refrain from putting questions. With women the confessor must be particularly on his guard not to give grounds for evil interpretation, since many people are quick to suspect wrong. Thus it would be imprudent for him to admit women penitents to confession at times when the church is less frequented ; since absolute security for the seal of confession would even then not be attainable, and suspicion would in all likelihood be easily aroused. If the confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of deaf people in the church and he has doubts as to the integrity of the accu sation, he must be more solicitous for the seal than for the in tegrity of the confession; hence he must refrain from questions 96 Compare § 20, Confessions of the Dumb who are Able to Write. REASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 203 as to the number or circumstances of the sins and must give a very slight and ordinary penance, so that those who overhear his words may not be led to conclude that the penitent has been confessing mortal sins.97 5. Finally, ignorance of the language constitutes a physical impossibility for those unable to find a confessor understanding them; for such people it is sufficient if they manifest their con trition and their sins as far as they can by signs. The con fessor, in default of any other priest knowing the language, must admit them to confession and aliquoties absolve them even if he can barely make out the most general accusation. V. A moral impossibility exists, as before remarked, when great harm ensuing to the penitent or to the confessor or to some third person is to be feared from the completeness of the con fession ; the harm to be feared must preponderate over the mate rial integrity of the confession. Therefore exception is made to the demand of integrity (com pleteness) in confession : — 1. When there is risk of infamy (periculum inf amice), if the penitent is exposed to lose the esteem he is held in not only by the confessor but also by others. This may happen in various ways, particularly if the penitent is so placed that a perfect con fession would be overheard by others, or if the time required for a complete confession were so long that it would give rise to unfavorable suspicions. Such a case is most likely to happen when others know that the penitent has been in the habit of confessing, and the latter, on account of those confessions being invalid, is obliged to repeat them, while the time for a communion which he cannot postpone without exciting comment, is quite close. A sick man, for instance, has confessed and is about to receive 97 S. Alph. 1. c. Lib. VI. n. 644 ; Prax. Conf. n. 104 ; H. Ap. n. 155 ; Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. II. n. 503, Not. ; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 297, Q, III. 204 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE the viaticum ; he reveals to the priest that he has made several sacrilegious confessions. To repeat these in full would excite suspicions on the part of the bystanders who thought that he was prepared to receive holy communion. Or, to use another illustration, on the occasion of some solemn and public communion in common one of the communicants goes to the priest a short time before communion and reveals that he has made a sacrilegious confession; since there is no time to repeat it, it is enough if he makes an act of sorrow, men tions the sacrilegious confession and perhaps one or two of his other sins ; he must then be absolved and later, of course, make a full confession. Or, a priest is already at the altar, about to offer the holy sacrifice, but remembers that he has mortal sins on his soul not yet confessed; he makes a short act of contrition and confesses his sins to an assisting priest who is standing close by him; the latter will then give absolution secretly. Outside the case of necessity where a priest must celebrate Mass or a person is to receive communion, the penitent is in nowise excused from mak ing a full confession on the ground that others, noticing the length of time spent in the confessional, should suspect him of being guilty of many grave sins.98 2. When there is danger of breach of the seal of confession (periculum Icesionis sigilli), as when, which is a very rare case, it should be foreseen that the confessor would break the seal, or in the case where a confessor could not reveal his own sins without at the same time revealing the sins of his penitent and so breaking the seal. The first case, i.e. where the confessor breaks the seal — with out, of course, intending to do so — might happen when the priest speaks so loud that he can be overheard by those in the neighborhood, and in spite of representations still fails to subdue 98 Aertnys, 1. c. n. 195, Q. I ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 330. REASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 205 his voice, either because he is deaf, or because his zeal runs away with him, or because he is afflicted with some defect of voice which prevents him talking in a lower tone. This would be only an indirect breach of the seal, certainly not to be sanctioned but rather to be severely blamed as wrong and sinful. If, then, the confessor speaks too loud, and continues to do so even after tho panitent has reminded him of the fault, the latter is justified in keeping back part of his confession so that the confessor may not in the course of his questions reveal to the bystanders the sins confessed. If, however, the penitent has an exaggerated dread that his confessor may break the seal by making revelations outside the confessional, he is not justified in withholding his confession in full, for he imagines a sin so horrible that the suspicion of it could only be entertained in the case of heretics. This holds true at least as far as a direct breach of the seal is concerned. A penitent could hardly ever be dispensed from a full confes sion on account of such a fear, and if he were to reveal to another confessor that such a motive had prompted him to keep back some of his sins, the confessor could not receive this as an excuse without further inquiry. On the other hand, the danger of a breach of the seal on the part of a priest who confesses the sins he has incurred in hearing confessions is not beyond the bounds of possibility; in this case he must pass over in silence those sins which would involve such a risk." 3. When danger of scandal (periculum scandali) is to be feared either with respect to the priest or the penitent. Such a case might occur where the penitent is afraid of sinning by taking pleasure in thoughts against charity and especially against purity when examining his conscience ; his duty then would be to avoid dwelling upon the number and circumstances even at the risk 99 Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. n. 195, and Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 332. 206 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE of making an incomplete confession, for the natural law of avoid ing the danger of grave sin prevails over the positive law of mak ing a complete confession. The same reason may be a motive to the confessor to be very prudent in questioning such peni tents so as not to expose them to commit new offenses against God in the very Sacrament of reconciliation. If a penitent have well-grounded fears of the confessor's weak ness and that the latter will, if he hear a peccatum turpe, give way to bad thoughts or cause him to sin, he is bound to avoid such a confessor ; if, however, in a case of necessity, he requires his help and cannot find another confessor hie et nunc, he may omit those sins of which the avowal would be dangerous. A priest who knows that his weakness exposes him to great risks in hearing confessions must withdraw from the confessional if it be at all possible, unless there be good reasons to suppose that the fear arises from some unforeseen and exceptional inci dent ; in such a case the confessor must omit the questions which ordinarily would have to be put to secure the completeness of the accusation. " Dangers of this kind are not to be lightly and unreasonably supposed, but only on solid grounds; and if it be a question of danger to the confessor, only after very unmistakable indi cations." 10° 4. When a scrupulous penitent is always tortured with the thought that his previous confessions have not been valid and believes that his sins have never been properly confessed.101 Such penitents are to be forbidden to make detailed examina tion of conscience even though in consequence their confessions should fall short of the necessary completeness. 5. When there is danger of bodily harm (damnum corporate i°o Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 331 ; Stotz, 1. c. Lib. I. P. TIT. Q. IT. nti. 68 et 69. 101 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 488 ; Aertnys, 1. c. ; Elbel, Tlieol. Moral. Vol. III. P. IX. De Poanit. n. 150. See § 72, Treatment of the Scrupulous in Con fession. REASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 207 or periculum vita). If, for instance, a long confession exposed the priest to danger of infection, even though by other precau tions he might lessen the danger or perhaps quite reduce it, in order to avoid the risk he may allow the penitent to state quite briefly a few sins, thus contenting himself with an imperfect confession, and may then give absolution ; moreover, if the peni tent is so weak and exhausted by the illness as to be unable without grave harm, or great increase of suffering and weaken ing of his condition, to examine his conscience carefully and so make a perfect confession, the priest ought not to annoy him by questions, but rather try to awaken contrition and then give absolution even after an incomplete confession.102 It was observed above (n. 4) that moral inability to make a complete confession can only be admitted when the confession cannot be put off and is urgent hie et nunc. The confession may be regarded as urgent, 1, when the peni tent is in danger of death ; 2, when the precept of annual confes sion and communion is instant; 3, if the reception of holy communion or the celebration of Mass cannot be put off without confusion or scandal ; and, 4, if otherwise the penitent could not again approach confession for a long period. Reuter 103 and Lugo consider a delay of more than three days long enough for a man in mortal sin to regard the case as urgent; indeed one may consider the impotentia moralis as justified if a man were compelled to remain in mortal sin one or two days. There is a special difficulty in solving the question whether a sin can or ought to be confessed which cannot be disclosed with out damaging the reputation of the partner of the sin in the eyes of the confessor. Theologians do not agree in their opinions, but are all unanimous in teaching, 1, that a penitent is obliged to seek, if possible, another confessor to whom he can make a complete confession and to whom the accomplice is unknown, 102 S. Alph. 1. c. ; Stotz and Aertnys, 1. c. 103 L. c. n. 331. Cf. St. Alph. 1. c. n. 487. 208 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE and in this way save his neighbor's reputation; and, 2, that it the sin which cannot be confessed without injury to the char acter of the accomplice is not necessary matter of confession, it ought not to be revealed unless the sin of the accomplice be only slight and the confession of that particular sin be of pecul iar benefit to the penitent. If, nevertheless, the accomplice be revealed to the confessor, such revelation, in accordance with a very probable opinion, is not to be regarded as a grave sin ; for according to the teach ing of a number of theologians, whom St. Alphonsus approves and with whom St. Thomas seems to agree, it is not a gravely sinful defamation to reveal the sins of another to one or other trustworthy and upright man. Though many theologians de clare this to be gravely sinful if done without reason, the oppo site opinion is so well founded that it may be followed in practice as quite probable.104 But if it is at all probable, it is much more so when the sin of another is revealed to a priest who is bound to the most inviolable secrecy by the highest and holiest ties. Hence it follows that the revelation of the accomplice is cer tainly no sin when there is reasonable ground for it; such would be, for instance, if the confession made to a priest who knows the accomplice were useful or necessary to the penitent, sup posing that no other confessor, to whom the accomplice is un known, were available; furthermore, the penitent is not bound to seek another confessor unacquainted with the accomplice if the search involves great trouble or loss. With these premises we approach the question : May a peni tent, or ought he, confess a mortal sin which cannot be revealed without at the same time revealing the accomplice to the con fessor, or may he omit the mention of that sin and so detract from the completeness of his confession? The greater number of theologians and those of most weight 104 Cf. Aertnys, Lib. III. Tract. VIII. De octavo Prsecepto Decalogi, n. 534, Q. 2. REASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 209 teach that the revelation of the complex is not a reason excusing from an entire accusation, since it is no violation of the jus natu- rale which safeguards the reputation of another to reveal the secret sins of one's neighbor for good reasons to a prudent and upright man, and the law of charity only forbids defamation of one's neighbor without reason; in this case, however, there is a causa justa, and a very urgent reason, viz., the making of a per fect confession and the guidance of the conscience. The precept of making a sincere accusation is potioris juris than the precept of not defaming the neighbor, so that such defamation in face of the need of making a complete confession is to be regarded as of no account. Lugo rejects, as involving a petitio principii, the other argument advanced by the defenders of this view, namely, that the penitent is simply making use of his right to confess his sin, and that the accomplice by participating in the sin has surrendered his claim to his reputation so far as it is affected by the confession of the sins; he adduces another argu ment: that since the benefits resulting from confession are so immense that Christ has bound the penitent to endure the shame of revealing his own sins, it is a natural consequence that to obtain such benefits one may be allowed to reveal another's sin.105 The same is taught by St. Thomas,106 St. Bonaventure, St. Antoninus, St. Bernard, Gerson, Cajetan, Henriquez,Suarez,107 Lugo,108 Laymann, Vasquez,109 Toletus, Reginald Lessius, Tam- burini, Salmanticenses,110 Reuter.111 St. Alphonsus 112 also holds this view. At the same time they teach that the penitent is bound, if he can manage it commode, to spare the reputation of his accomplice by going to a confessor to whom the accomplice is unknown; and St. Alphonsus expressly condemns the view that this is matter of counsel and not of precept. Thus the 105 Lugo, 1. c. n. 398. i°9 Q. 91, dub. 3, a. 2. 106 In IV. dist. 16, Q. 3, a. 2. n° C. 8, n. 128. 107 Disp. 34, Sect. 2. m P. IV. n. 321. 108 Disp. 16, n. 398 sq. 112 L. c. 11* 489. 210 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE penitent is freed from the obligation of seeking out another con fessor only (a) when there is danger of death or when the annual confession can no longer be put off; (b) when the penitent by refraining from communion or from the celebration of Mass would be exposed to misinterpretation and shame; (c) when a penitent is in a state of mortal sin, and would be obliged to re main in that condition one or two days (per biduum imo etiam per diem) till he could find another confessor ; (d) when the com plex may be presumed to have given up his claim to his good reputation, as in the case of a brother who having sinned with his sister knows that she will not go to another confessor without her mother; (e) when a priest being accustomed to celebrate every day, and a lay person being accustomed to communicate daily, would find much difficulty in omitting these pious acts ; (/) when a person finds great repugnance in revealing his or her state of soul to another confessor; (g) when otherwise the penitent would be deprived of a jubilee or other indulgence; (h) mothers or husbands may be excused when through a wish to have coun sel or sympathy they reveal the sins of their children, etc., to a confessor who knows the latter, especially when they find it hard to approach another confessor; (i) when the seeking of another confessor involves a privation of consolation and peace for the penitent accustomed to a wise and helpful spiritual di rector. Hence it is evident that a penitent is rarely, if ever, obliged to seek another confessor under the given circumstances.113 The other opinion, that it is not allowed to reveal the accom plice, and in consequence that one is not bound to mention a mortal sin which cannot be confessed without revealing the accomplice, is taught, among others, by Canus, Petrus Soto, Ledesma, Navarrus, Valentia, Banez, etc. Busenbaum and Mazzotta deemed the opinion probable.114 These theologians urge that it is a violation of the natural law to injure the good "8 S. Alph. 1. c. 490 ; Gury-Baller. TT. 500, Q. II. 114 De Poenit. Disp. I. Q. IV. cp. 7, § 1 ab initiu. REASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 211 name of another, and hence that the obligation of not inflict ing such injury is potioris juris than the duty of making a com plete confession, since this is founded on a positive law. It need not be imagined, however, that this opinion is the benignior, because it releases from the duty of making a perfect confession; considered closely the case takes on quite another aspect, for:— 1. It requires the penitent to seek out another confessor to whom the accomplice is unknown even when this involves great trouble to the penitent, for as all will concede, the integrity of the confession must be preserved so far as it is possible, and only the damage and hardship to the penitent which makes the con fession morally impossible excuse from making a complete con fession. Hence this incommodum must be grave and much greater than that which in the other view allows the defamation of the accomplice. 2. If, however, a man cannot confess to another confessor and is resolved to conceal the sin or its circumstances in order to save his neighbor's reputation, there arises a greater diffi culty, the obligation of confessing the same sin again; for in order to save his neighbor's good name a man may only conceal that circumstance which affects the reputation of his neighbor, and this is the unanimous teaching of all theologians; for ex ample, if a man has committed incest, and has no other means of confessing it, he must mention in his first confession that he has fallen into a sin of impurity, passing over in silence the cir cumstances which make it incest. He must, however, when opportunity is presented of going to another confessor, mention the circumstance of the incest, and this cannot be done without repeating his former accusation of having fallen into a sin against purity. 3. It is also to be observed that if defamation of one's neighbor excuses from a complete confession, and if in consequence a particular sin may not be revealed (for such is the foundation of 212 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE this opinion), the confessor is not allowed to put questions which may cause an indirect revelation of the accomplice, especially to ill-instructed penitents who would have no idea of how to parry the questions. Now if these questions are to be avoided by the confessor, he may not inquire into the occasions of sin, or he must leave to the judgment and discretion of the penitent how far the latter is bound to answer the questions put to him. The consequences, as any one may see, implicate the direction of penitents in great difficulties, and on that account no one can admit either of these methods of action. Now the confessor, in order to be faithful to his important duty of withdrawing his penitents from the occasions of sin, and in order not to be deceived by a penitent who, left to his own judg ment, will not realize the danger of the occasions, must question his penitent with perfect liberty and undeterred by the fear of ob taining any knowledge of the accomplice in sin, if it is probable though not certain that such defamation of the accomplice is not a reason dispensing from the integrity of the confession. This opinion is certainly probable. The champions of this view are far from denying that the natural law forbids the injuring of another's good name, but, they maintain, such injury is forbidden only when there are no reasonable grounds for inflicting it; it must be proved that the precept of making a complete confession is a sufficient reason, since such defamation to a confessor is certainly not objectively grave. That this ground is a reasonable one is evident from many weighty considerations : — 1. Good reasons have been already offered in the difficulties which are presented when perfect liberty is not allowed in con fessing or asking the circumstances and occasions of sins. 2. Further examples may be easily imagined in which the defamation of another resulting from the penitent's confession is not to be considered ; for no one would dream, for example, of releasing a son from the obligation of making a perfect con- REASONS EXCUSING FROM COMPLETE ACCUSATION 213 fession because it might be concluded from the gravity and nature of his sins that his parents had brought him up very badly ; nor would a religious be excused for fear his confessor should entertain the suspicion that his superiors were neglecting their duty towards him. For such defamation may well be considered as of little moment, since the confessor is bound to the most stringent silence and can make absolutely no use of what he hears in confession. 3. Moreover, the precept of making a complete confession is so severe that the penitent may never transgress it in order to safeguard his own good name, and is obliged to overcome the fear of losing it. But, according to the universal teaching, a man is justified in self-defense to do a lawful act even if thereby he injure the character of his neighbor if there is no other way of shielding his own or regaining it when lost; hence it must be allowable to injure the reputation of another if the end in view is to make a perfect confession ; or the same cause (the integrity of the confession) which binds me to injure my own good name gives me the right of disregarding any infamy that may accrue to others in discharging this duty.115 4. Finally, since it was in early days the practice of confessing to one's parish priest, and he was generally acquainted with all his subjects, the precept of making a complete confession would have had no meaning if the other opinion \vere tenable in respect to sins which were difficult to confess. Is it possible that Christ should give a command which in practice turned out so nuga tory?116 From what has been already said on this subject it follows 115 Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, 1. c. ; Tamburini, Meth. conf. 1. 2, c. 9, § 2. 110 Thus Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 334 ss. ; cf. Aertnys, 1. c. n. 196, Q. 10 ; Lugo, 1. c. Ballerini, however, 1. c. n. 499, Q. I, concludes thus in his notes : Ergo, seclusis aliis incommodis, Integra manere videtur obligatio circumstantiam illarn tacendi quando ex ejusdem confessione alterius infainia consequatur. Cf. Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. (de Complicis manifestat.) n. 439-450. 214 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE that the confessor, if he thinks fit, is quite at liberty to put ques tions on the circumstances or occasions of sin; moreover, that penitents ought not to be instructed to conceal circumstances which may injure the reputation of the accomplice with the confessor; they ought rather to be encouraged to make a com plete confession to their regular confessor if they are unable to find another. If, however, some one acting upon the undoubted authority of theologians who teach the other view wishes to make his confession accordingly, he cannot be blamed if he has formed a dictamen conscientice, and he cannot be forced to renounce his opinion. Again, if a confessor remarks that a penitent is familiar with his theology and makes his accusation in accordance with the other opinion, and if he is satisfied that said penitent is capable of forming a judgment about his obligations, he may more easily omit certain questions and leave the penitent free to follow his own opinion. What has been said with respect to the accomplice's reputa tion applies equally to those who have been in any way an occa sion of sin to the penitent. There are cases in which the penitent cannot give the specific character of his sin without at the same time disclosing the sin of another which has been the object or occasion of his own sin. A man, for instance, discovers his un married sister to be in confinement and maltreats her so that abortus follows; he cannot explain the nature of his crime fully in the confessional without revealing his sister's sin and so de stroying her reputation in the mind of the priest. Although some even of those who teach that the integrity of the confession may take precedence of the accomplice's character are unwilling to grant it in this particular case, yet there is at least a proba bility that the obligation of integrity prevails in any case.117 117 Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 420; Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. n. 502; Lehmkuhl 1. c. n. 338. THE EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE 215 ARTICLE III THE MEANS TO BE EMPLOYED IN ORDER TO MAKE A PERFECT CONFESSION 28. The Examination of Conscience. Since the penitent is obliged to make a complete confession of his mortal sins, as far as lies in his power, there naturally devolves upon him the duty of examining his conscience. Re garding the examination of conscience the following points are to be noted : — I. The penitent is bound under pain of mortal sin to prepare for confession by a serious and careful examination of con science, and he must devote to this examination such diligence as a prudent man would ordinarily devote to any important business; hence in order that the omission of mortal sins in the accusation may not be attributed to sinful neglect, diligentia mediocris, as it is called, or diligentia moralis is required, not such as would make the practice of confession hateful or unduly burdensome. The proof for this is supplied by the Council of Trent,118 and it is clear that if mortal sins are to be confessed they must be recalled to the mind. Theologians observe, however, that when a man has examined his conscience with moral diligence, but still believes that further examination would reveal more sins, he is not obliged to spend more time in examining Irs conscience; otherwise a penitent who had neglected confession for many years would have to examine his conscience for days and still fail to do his duty; such a conclusion is obviously wrong.119 Sporer 12° even goes so far as to teach that a man who has 118 Sess. XIV. cp. 5 et can. 7 (examen diligens). 119 Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 16, nn. 590-594 ; cf. Laym. Lib. V. Tr. 6, 8. 120 L. c. n. 366. 216 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE used moral diligence in examining his conscience and has made his confession, and afterwards cannot recall whether he men tioned or not some particular sin, is not bound to confess it, because the presumption is that he has confessed it along with the other sins. If, however, he have strong misgivings on other grounds and cannot settle his doubt as to whether he has con fessed the sin or not, he is always obliged to mention that sin, if there is no doubt of its having been committed, in the next confession. II. The care which ought to be employed in this examination is not the same for all classes of penitents ; it varies according to the circumstances of the penitents: more especially accord ing to — (1) the state of conscience and the habitual purity of life ; (2) the time elapsed since the last valid confession ; (3) the education, the knowledge (in religious matters especially), the intelligence of the penitent ; (4) the state of health.121 1. One who seldom falls into mortal sin may satisfy himself with a less strict examination of conscience, especially if he be in the habit of making a daily examination of conscience; for if a penitent of this kind falls into mortal sin, he will immedi ately recall it; and one who is morally certain that he has not sinned mortally is, strictly speaking, not bound to any examina tion of conscience, but he must be careful to offer sufficient matter for confession. Though this is quite correct in theory, in practice the penitent is strongly advised to make a careful examination of conscience in order to rid himself of his smaller faults and to reap greater fruit from the Sacrament. 2. The longer the period over which the examination is to ex tend the more time and care must be expended in this prepa ration, but it is not to be laid down as a principle that a man who has not confessed for a year is bound to be twelve times as long in his preparation as the- man whose last confession was a month before. 121 Mazzotta, 1. c. Disput. I. Q. II. cp. I. THE EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE 217 3. Less instructed or quite uneducated people are not obliged to so careful and searching an examination as the better in structed ; they are quite incapable of examining their conscience, ad impossibilia nemo tenetur. If an educated penitent comes to the Sacrament unprepared, the confessor should with all proper consideration send him away again to prepare himself by a care ful examination of conscience, unless there should be solid grounds for supposing such a step inopportune ; but only grave reasons justify such toleration, for, though the sins committed might be ascertained by questions, there is no moral certainty that such a confession is a perfect one. A penitent who has not been to confession for a long time and is leading a worldly life cannot without preparation answer at once and correctly whether he has committed such or such sins. If the penitent is uneducated, or, although educated, yet ignorant in religion, and has taken absolutely no pains to acquire a knowledge of his sins, he must be treated in the same way; if, however, he has taken some pains in the matter, the confessor may supply the defect by questions; for an uneducated man left to himself will, even after a long examination of conscience, never succeed so well as when guided by the prudent questioning of an experienced and skillful confessor who will do the work in a much shorter time. If, then, the confessor sees that he can procure by ques tioning a perfect confession such as the penitent left to his own resources could hardly make after long examination, he should help him, all the more if there is reason to fear that the peni tent would be frightened by the postponement of his confession, and might be deterred from confession, at least for a time, by the difficulties attending a careful examination of conscience. This method, the result of great experience, is confirmed by the Catechismus Romanus : m " If a priest remarks that such peni tents are quite unprepared, he should dismiss them with very i22 Parti I. cp. 5,n. 60. 218 THE HEC1PIENT OF PENANCE gentle words and advise them to come again after spending some time in thinking over their sins. If they maintain that they have already exercised all diligence in examining their con science, he should hear them; since there is reason to fear that if sent away they might not return, and he may with more rea son hear their confessions if they show any signs of wishing to reform their life; then they may be urged to accuse themselves of their carelessness and promise for the future to make up for their faults by a careful examination." Reuter 123 observes on this subject: " Besides, experience teaches, as is well remarked by Vasquez and Lugo, that a pru dent confessor can accomplish more with most penitents and uneducated people by a few questions than they can themselves after a long examination. Hence such penitents when they give any signs of fervor ought not to be easily dismissed, in order to examine themselves again, even when defects are noticed." Sporer m writes : " Uneducated and inexperienced penitents are unable to make such an exact examination as the more edu cated; hence they should be helped by the confessor." Seg- neri,125 too, warns the priest not to send away ignorant penitents to make a fresh examination of conscience, unless for the most urgent reasons, since, on the one hand, they may be frightened away and never come to confession again, and, on the other hand, the confessor himself can easily supply for their deficiency by his zeal. Although a penitent knows that he will be questioned by his confessor, he is none the less bound to examine his conscience, since otherwise he would be exposed to the danger of giving wrong and insufficient answers or of omitting a great deal; he may, however, permit himself a little less care, especially with regard to the sins common to people in his state of life.12* 123 L. c. n. 311. 124 Theol. Sacram. Tom. III. De Poenit. n. 365. 125 lustructio Poenit. cp. II. 126 Mazzotta, 1. c. ; cf. Suarez, Disp. 22. THE EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE 219 No one is bound to write his sins even if he should be afraid of forgetting them; nor, if sin has been committed with an other, is there any obligation to consult with the accomplice in sin to determine the number of sins ; so, too, one who has missed Mass the whole year is not bound to count up the feasts in the calendar, for this would be diligentia extraordinaria such as the Council of Trent does not demand.127 4. Those who are prostrated by illness and through weakness or pain cannot review their past life are not obliged to make an exact examination of conscience; indeed the confessor should only put to them a few questions according to their condition. If, however, they regain their health, they must supply what was wanting in their accusation; if, after receiving absolution, other mortal sins occur to their mind, they should confess them and get absolution. In general the sick are not required to make so careful an examination as others; hence the priest should not yield when they wish to put off confession from one day to another on the plea of examining their conscience better ; usually this is only a pretext for putting off the confession, and does not arise from anxiety or eagerness to prepare well, but from fear; such persons must be prepared by the priest himself for absolution and the other Sacraments.128 III. A penitent who is guilty of gross neglect in the examina tion of conscience makes per se an invalid and sacrilegious con fession; he must, of course, be sufficiently conscious of such neglect in order to incur this sin. The malice of the offense consists in the risk of omitting some mortal sin, and so, though none may have been actually left out, the penitent has sinned gravely by consciously exposing himself to the danger. IV. In order to make a good examination of conscience the penitent should adopt some system; the simplest and easiest method is to go through the commandments of God and of the 127 Mazzotta 1. c.; Aertnys, 1. c. De Pcenit. cp. III. § 2, n. 186. 128 Aertnys, I.e. De Pcenit. cp. III. art. III. § 2, n. 196. 220 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE Church, the various kinds of sins (especially the Seven Capital Sins), and the nine ways of participating in sin; it is also recom mended to call to mind particular hours and days. Theologians give many other methods besides for this examination. Reuter recommends the penitent to recall where he was each day, what was done, and what sins were committed by thoughts, wishes, and desires, words, and works ; how he has conducted himself at home, in church, with his neighbors; the author considers that by this means repetition will be avoided. To examine the con science according to this method would be to exercise not only diligentia sufficiens but magna omnino diligentia.™ Sporer, approv ing the method recommended by Gobat, offers a compendious system for penitents who lead a fairly uniform existence and for whom the examination of conscience extends over a longer time, some months or half a year. The penitent should consider three periods : (1) an ordinary working-day; (2) a Sunday; (3) an exceptional day in which he has traveled, done some particular business, been present at a wedding or a dinner, etc.130 One who has only to examine a short interval may call to mind how he has sinned against God, his neighbor, and himself, by thoughts, words, and deeds. V. The following directions are given by approved moralists to determine whether any carelessness in the examination of conscience is a mortal or venial sin and whether in consequence the confession has been valid or not. 1. Those may rest in perfect security who, being neither too strict nor too lax, experience no misgiving or anxiety on the care which they have devoted to the examination of their conscience. 2. If a man doubts whether he has been guilty of more or less carelessness and discovers after confession that he has omitted more sins than he has confessed, he must acknowledge 129 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 344. 130 Cf. Stotz, Tribunal Pcenitentice, Lib. I. P. I. Q. I. art. 9, Praxis examinis pro Confessipne, and Lib. I. P. III. Q. III. art. 1 ss. Syllabus peccatorum. THE EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE 221 himself guilty of gravely sinful neglect; if, however, he has con fessed more sins than he has omitted, it may be assumed that he has not been guilty of great carelessness. 3. If a penitent's last confession was made one or two weeks before and he accuses himself of mortal sins, giving the number of times in quite a vague and doubtful fashion, e.g., I have com mitted sins against holy purity. three or four times, there is a strong suspicion that he has been gravely careless in the exami nation of his conscience.131 It should be noticed that if a penitent, from experience of his own weakness, is afraid that by a prolonged examination of his sins he will again consent to them, he may confine himself to a rapid glance at- them, though he knows that for want of further examination many will be omitted, since in any case the risk of committing «hi must be avoided. A confessor must ob serve the same gu?,rdedness in putting questions on sins against the angelic virtue. &s we shall see later. If the penitent ia troubled with scruples, it is better for him not to go so thoroughly into his examination of conscience, otherwise confession would become too burdensome, and experi ence shows that such penitents become only more confused, the more they examine themselves ; indeed they should be forbidden any long and anxious attention to themselves. Let the confessor impress upon worrying souls that the great thing for them is to have the wish to confess all, that God recognizes the good will, and that this is shown by praying for grace to make a good examination of conscience, and that even if a sin be forgotten without any fault it is remitted, and that the time between confession and communion should not be occupied with the recalling of one's past sins, but that the mind should be fixed on the future.132 181 Mazzotta, 1. c. Disp. I. Q. II. cp. I (Lacroix) ; Renter, Theol. Mor. P. IV. 11. 311; Sporer, 1. c. n. 367. 182 Compare Renriinger-Gopfert, Pastoraltheologie, I BcL I Tl. § 66. 222 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE 29. Invalid Confessions. Confessions may be either invalid or merely defective. If only defective but not invalid, the defect should be supplied, but there is no need to repeat the confession; if, however, they are invalid, they must be repeated. This repetition need not always be made in the same manner. A confession may be invalid through the fault of the penitent or through that of the confessor. A confession may be invalid through the penitent's fault : — 1. By a gravely sinful defect in the examination of con science. 2. By culpable and deliberate concealment of anything which ought to be confessed, or by a gravely sinful lie in confession. 3. By the want of contrition and purpose of amendment; and this defect is to be found among recidivi as well as those who refuse restitution or reconciliation with their enemies. 4. By want of good will to carry out the penance imposed, and to undertake other duties which bind under pain of griev ous sin, if the good will is wanting at the time of receiving abso lution. 5. By ignorance of those truths which must be known neces sitate medii in order to gain salvation. 6. By receiving absolution while still under a sentence of excommunication. Among the principal effects of such a sen tence must be counted privatio sacramentorum, so that any one receiving the Sacraments in this condition incurs a mortal sin by breaking the law of the Church. One may be saved, how ever, from grievous sin in this matter by inculpable ignorance, fear of death or mutilation, great disgrace or serious loss of for tune, etc., as well as by the necessity of obeying the law of yearly confession and communion when there is no priest with faculties for absolving from censures, for the law of the Church is not so severe as to bind its subjects to suffer grievous damage. INVALID CONFESSIONS 223 It is illicit and even sacrilegious for an excommunicated person to receive the Sacraments, though the reception is valid except in the case of the Sacrament of Penance. But when the excommunicated person is in good faith and thinks he may receive absolution, such absolution is valid, it being presumed of course that he goes to confession with the necessary dis positions. Such a case might occur when, through invincible ignorance or forgetfulness, he omits to mention the censure of excommunication, or when the priest does not know of it or forgets for the moment that such a censure is attached to cer tain sins, or, again, even where the priest knowingly absolves the penitent, though unprovided with faculties for the case, because the penitent is in one of the cases of necessity men tioned above and the priest feels it his duty to give absolution, or even if ex malitia he absolves a penitent who believes him to have faculties.133 On the part of the confessor the confession may be made in valid if he has not the necessary jurisdiction or intention, or if he omits something essential in the formula of absolution, or if through deafness or inattention or the indistinctness of the penitent's utterance he has not understood any sin. If, how ever, through no fault of the penitent the priest missed some sins, even mortal sins, the confession would, according to the probable opinion, be valid if he heard part of the accusation ; those sins, however, which had not been understood ought to be repeated. If in the course of confession the penitent ob serves that the confessor does not understand because he is asleep or distracted, the penitent must repeat what the priest has failed to hear ; if, in spite of this, the penitent were to con tinue the confession (mala fide), it would be sinful and invalid and ought to be repeated. If at the end of the confession the penitent sees that the confessor has been sleepy or distracted 133 Cf. Gury-Ballerini, IT. De Censuris, n. 960, Not. 1-4, also n. 430, Q. 7; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 430. in fine; Acrtnys, 1. c. De Censuris, n. 39. 224 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE and so has missed some of the sins, though he does not know which have been missed, he must begin again unless the ac cusation has been a long one, in which case it is enough if the penitent repeat what he thinks the confessor may have missed, for it may be presumed that Christ never intended to prescribe perfect confession when attended with such inconvenience.134 With respect to repeating confessions the following principles are accepted : - I. If a confession is invalid, the sins mentioned in it must be repeated; otherwise, the ensuing confession is invalid, for those sins were never remitted by the power of the keys, and in con sequence they must be again submitted to the tribunal. II. The duty of repeating a confession urges as soon as there is a moral certainty that said confession was null; if, how ever, the confession has certainly been made and there is doubt only as to its validity, the presumption is in favor of its validity. It is, however, advisable to repeat a doubtfully valid confession. There is no difficulty where the penitent has willfully con cealed or never intended to give up a mortal sin or never avoided a voluntary occasion of sin, and in other such cases, for the confession was unquestionably invalid and sacrilegious. It is more difficult, however, to determine at times on the validity of a confession when the penitent has frequently re lapsed without being voluntarily and continually in the occasion of sin. If a penitent shortly after confession falls frequently into sin on the first occasion that offers, without making any resistance, the presumption is that the confession was deficient in the required contrition and purpose of amendment, and that in consequence it was invalid. If, however, after confession he usually makes some effort, the nullity of the confession is not certain, and the confessor may not force him to repeat the confession, but he will do well to counsel him to do so when his !34 S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 498, 499 ; Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 607; Suarez, Disp. 28, s. 2, n. 12 (sententia communis). INVALID CONFESSIONS 225 dispositions improve and he is earnest in his contrition and in his efforts to make a permanent reform.135 III. Invalid confessions must be repeated in their entirety when new confession is made to another priest who has no knowl edge of the sins contained in the preceding invalid confessions, for this knowledge is necessary in order to pronounce judgment; hence it is not enough for a penitent to accuse himself merely of having made one or more invalid confessions. IV. If the confession is made to a priest who has heard the invalid confessions, and in consequence has already passed sen tence on the individual sins and has at least a knowledge in conjuso of the penitent's state, it is sufficient to summarize the accusation of previously confessed sins in the form, "I accuse myself of the sins already mentioned in ... confession," men tioning if the previous confessions were invalid through want of integrity, and supplying this want by a distinct and separate accusation of the sin or sins omitted.136 The previous confes sions were sacramental, since they were made with a view to obtain absolution, though deprived of their sacramental efficacy through the fault of the penitent; hence a general repetition of them in connection with the knowledge which the confessor had of the individual sins may be considered as sufficient to form a judgment. If a penitent wishes to make a general confession, the distinction between the usual confessor and any other is not of so great moment, except where the confessor or the peni tent is intent upon the minimum necessarium; the usual confessor of the penitent may, however, be satisfied with less care, since he knows already the previous sins of his penitent. In this case, however, he must have notitiam saltern confusam status pcenitentis; for this it is not necessary that he should be able to 135 Cf. §§ 63. 64, where the recidivi are treated of, and Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sacr. Pcenit. Sect. II. cp. II. Confessio, art. III. § 2, n. -547. 130 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 502 ; H. A. n. 44; Lacroix, 1. c. n. 216 ; Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 638 ; Elbel, n. 253, etc. 226 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE recall the number and circumstances of the sins in question: a remembrance of the different species and their number in gen eral suffices. The confessor will have acquired this notitia confusa from previous confessions and from the questions which he puts to the penitent. Such knowledge is sufficient in so far as it is connected with a knowledge of previous sins, and that will be the case where the general confession is made to the same priest. If, however, the priest can only vaguely call to mind his past treatment of the penitent, he should put some questions to him in order to form an idea of the state of his conscience; but he may absolve without this precaution, if from the penances which he has been in the habit of giving to his penitent he can form a judgment as to the state of his soul.137 The same plan may be adopted in the case in which a man after making his confession is sent away without absolution, and afterwards returns to receive it, the confessor in the mean time retaining no recollection of the sins. Undoubtedly in such a case a notitia confusa is sufficient, and on the strength of it ab solution may be given. Nay, more : if the penitent's absolution had been delayed for some reason not connected with want of necessary dispositions, the confessor might be satisfied with the remembrance that the penitent was in right dispositions for absolution and had received a penance in proportion to the sin. Of course it is always understood that no fresh mortal sin has been committed in the interval between the confessions ; other wise it must be confessed and a new act of sorrow and resolution of amendment must be made.138 On the same principles we may answer the question already discussed as to whether a man who recounts his sins (mere his- twice) to a priest (qua amico) — to obtain advice, for instance 137 Cf . S. Alph. 1. c. n. 502, dub. 2 ; also Suarez, Lugo, Vasquez, Laymann, and other theologians. 138 Suarez, Disp. 22, Sect. 6, and Lugo, Disp. 16, Sect. 15, n. 636. INVALID CONFESSIONS 227 — is bound to retail them explicitly if in consequence of the priest's advice he desires to receive absolution; or the question might be put thus : What knowledge or recollection of the sins must the priest have so that on the strength of a perfunctory accusation couched in general terms he may give absolution? Many theologians, among them Lacroix and St. Alphonsus, require a distincta memoria of all the sins, because the preceding confession was not made to the priest as a judge in the Sacra ment, and so cannot be a sacramental confession; but a sac ramental confession is made only when the confessor has a distincta memoria of the sins narrated at the time when the sum mary of the accusation is made; if the priest remembers them only in confuso or ex parte, the penitent must once more make a distinct accusation of his sins in ordine ad dbsolutionem. The opposite view is taught by Lugo, who maintains that it is corn- munis, for almost all theologians teach that the memoria confusa is sufficient whatever may have caused the defect in the previous confession. He grants that the mere narration of the sins is in no way sacramental, that no judicial accusation has been made, that it is merely a friendly confidence ; this previous, though not sacramental, narration which still remains memoria non omnino distincta, may become in a certain manner sacramental by the ensuing (summarized) accusation, sufficient for the purposes of the Sacrament; not because the previous narration was sac ramental in itself, for it was not so, but in so far as the later accusation, joined with the recollection which the confessor has of the sins previously mentioned, supplies the priest with the knowledge necessary for the Sacrament.138 Thus Lugo combats successfully the objections and reasons of his opponents. Still in Lugo's proof and that of his supporters the difficulty must not be overlooked that the narration has no sort of relation 139 Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 16, nn. 637, 638. Cf. Suarez, De Poeuit. Disp. 22, Sect. 6, n. 5; Coninck, Disp. 4, n. 45; Tllsung, De Pojnit. Disp. 6, n. 152, etc. 228 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE to the Sacrament of Penance, either in the mind of the narrator or that of the priest, and that in consequence the reasons brought forward in the case above mentioned are not quite convincing. Aertnys consents to Lugo's decision — that is, he considers the repetition of the accusation as unnecessary only when the con fessor at the time when the summary of the sins is made has a distincta memoria eorum, since the general accusation of the penitent along with the notitia distincta of the confessor is equivalent to a distincta confessio.uo And Lehmkuhl regards Lugo's view as quite probable" only when the priest is enter taining hopes as he listens to the narration of getting the man to make a sacramental confession, though such a thought may be very far from the man's mind at the time. The accusation of the penitent may not be intentionally sacramental, while the attention of the priest has already begun to assume a judicial and sacramental form and is inchoative, at least, a distinctly judicial investigation such as would seem sufficient when the penitent on his part gives his consent to carry out the distinct judicial act. If, however, the penitent in the course of his narration never hinted at the idea of a sacramental accusation and the priest never adverted to it, the teaching of St. Alphon- sus would seem to prevail, for in such a case a distincta notitia judicialis never existed, unless a distincta memoria were retained by the priest; but the sacramental sentence which has to be pronounced over every mortal sin is based solely on a judicial knowledge of them.141 30. General Confession. The repetition of former confessions, whether of all the con fessions of a lifetime or of those last made, is called a general confession. It is necessary for many penitents, useful to others; to a few only it may be said to be harmful. 14° Aertnys, 1. c. art. ITT. Confessio, § 4, n. 203, Q. 2. "i Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 348. GENERAL CONFESSION 229 1. General confession is necessary for all who have made in valid confessions. St. Alphonsus remarks on this subject that it is a frequent experience in missions that bad confessions have to be set right ; hence he advises missioners that since the good of missions consists mainly in setting right bad confessions, they should in all their discourses be urgent in explaining the heinousness of sacrilege and how many souls are lost by conceal ing mortal sins in confession. Experience teaches that many people are overcome by false shame so as to conceal their sins even in the confessions which they make to the fathers giving the mission. If at so solemn a time as a mission such people fail to set right their bad confessions, what hope is there of their salvation ? If in the confession which they make to the missioner they cannot overcome their shame, how will they do it when they confess to the local priest? There is indeed good reason for ever and again insisting on the general confession.142 Hence it is very desirable that the local priests at the time of a mission should refrain from hearing confessions, and surrender their con fessionals to the fathers who give the mission (or to some strange priests called in for the special work of hearing the confessions), for some of the faithful, if they see their usual confessor in attend ance, may be deterred from going to a strange priest and con tinue to make sacrilegious confessions. It not unfrequently happens that people whom we would never suspect have most need of freedom in this respect.143 It frequently happens that a confessor thinks a general con fession necessary when the penitent is not at all convinced of its necessity. Whether the penitent is to be advised in such a 142 Silva, part 3, cp. 6. 143 Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. cp. 9. If the confessor is morally certain that the former confessions were bad, he must unquestionably insist on their repe tition ; if he has only doubts, he cannot impose on the penitent an absolute obligation. In dubio standum est pro valore actus. Cf . S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 20; Segneri, Instr. poen. cp. 15; Carol. Borom. Act. Med. p. 877; Ben- ger, Pastoraltheologie, Bd. IT. § 70, S. 470, 2. Auflage. 230 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE case to make a general confession will be determined by the rules which are given as to the duty of instructing the penitent 01 leaving him to himself (§ 55) ; for if the penitent suspects noth ing of the nullity of his previous confessions, the confession which he now makes in good faith and proper dispositions is valid, and by virtue of it the sins mentioned in former invalid confessions are indirectly remitted and need only be repeated when the conscience awakes to the fact. Moreover, a prudent confessor, if he fails to persuade a penitent of the necessity of a general confession, may succeed by a few questions in making the confession practically a general one. Indeed, unless the penitent takes it in bad part the priest may by a little adroitness elicit a general confession; then he must, before giving abso lution, let the penitent know that he has made a general confes sion. The case may also occur where the penitent has made one or more sacrilegious confessions and, quite forgetful of this circumstance, has begun to make valid confessions without ever setting right the bad ones; this not unfrequently happens to children. In this case the general confession need only extend over the sacrilegious confessions.144 2. Of the great usefulness of general confession, popes, saintly bishops, founders of orders, and the great doctors of the Church all speak in most unmistakable terms. The learned Benedict XIV, in his instructions on the preparation of the faithful for a fruitful celebration of the Jubilee, directs priests who give the missions to impress on the people again and again the great profit of general confession. They are to urge them to penance, and to instruct them how to receive the Sacrament validly and profitably, they are to proclaim that it is absolutely necessary to repeat former bad confessions, and they should take all pos sible pains to excite to a £«rierai confession even those who do not feel any necessity for repeating their sins again. "For if 144 S Alph, Praxis Confess, n. 22 ; cf. Aertnys, Theol. Pastor, complectens Practicain Tnstitut. Confessarii, P. ITL cp. VIII. art. II. n. 245. GENERAL CONFESSION 231 it is not necessary to mention again our former sins, we regard such repetition as very profitable on account of the confusion connected with such avowal, which is an important part of pen ance, as our predecessor, Benedict XI, teaches in this Decretal Inter Cunctas." He also appeals to St. Charles Borromeo, who in his Monita ad Confessarios proclaims the usefulness of general confession and recommends it. " Confessors," says the saint, " ought, with due regard to persons, times, and places, urge their penitents to make a general confession, that thus by a thorough examination of their lives they may turn to God with greater peace of mind and repair all faults which have been committed in former confessions." As another witness for the usefulness of this practice, Benedict XIV adduces St. Francis of Sales who, in many places in his works, insists strongly on the prac tice. Thus he writes to a widow concerning her father: The counsels which I give him I reduce to two points : the first one is that he should institute a careful examination of his whole life with a view to making a general confession and performing a corresponding penance, — this is a means which no sensible man will despise in presence of death; the other is that he should continually endeavor to wean his mind from the vanities of the world.145 Benedict then refers to the rules which St. Vin cent de Paul gave to his mission-priests, in which he exhorts them to encourage general confessions. In the life of the holy founder it is recorded what great fruits were reaped from the general confessions which were made during the missions held by those priests.146 The advantages of general confession are thus briefly enumer ated by St. Ignatius in his Book of the Exercises : (1) We gain greater fruit and merit on account of the deeper contrition with which we approach the Sacrament; (2) we are better able to realize the malice of sins committed ; (3) we are in better dispo- 145 S. Franc. Sal. Oper. Ed. Paris 1669. Tom T. p. 014, n. 6. 146 Benedict XTV. Const. Apostolica, 26 Jim. 1749, 1111. 16, 17. 232 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE sitions for receiving holy communion, and we are more dis posed to shun sin. Moreover, the Directorium of the Exercises, a work composed by a member of the Society of Jesus and edited by the General Claudius Aquaviva, adds the following observa tion : If the general confession offered no other advantage, the following fact would sufficiently recommend it; experience proves that men for the most part go to confession either with out proper examination, or without the required contrition, or with but a weak purpose of amendment; the general confession comes in most opportunely to give peace of mind, to remove scruples, which sooner or later, or at least at the hour of death, come to torture the soul and expose it to the danger of losing eternal salvation. Segneri also very earnestly recommends general confession. It is a very safe and useful plan to examine one's life thoroughly at least once, and to set it right by a general confession, and to keep up the practice at fixed intervals of a year, or even oftener, of making a general confession beginning from the last. The advantage of this practice is that, seeing all our faults and sins at a glance, we are filled with greater confusion and sorrow and are impelled to be more humble; besides the fear of God's justice will grow in us when we see our sins, past and present, hanging like a great mountain over us, so that we are compelled to cry out with Esdras — aOur sins are grown up even unto heaven." (Esdr. ix. 6.) And who does not see how difficult it is without such a confession to obtain that most priceless of blessings, peace of mind, at least if the frequent relapses into sin are due to a want of preparation? Oh, how many confessions are thought to be valid and are not so in reality ! 147 Finally, the words of St. Alphonsus deserve a place here: "I advise every one who has not yet done so to confess all the sins which he has ever committed in his life, and I advise not 147 Instruct, poenit. cp. 16. GENERAL CONFESSION 233 only those who have made sacrilegious confessions by conceal ing mortal sins, or whose confessions have been invalid through want of previous examination of conscience or of true contri tion, but those also who are anxious to begin a new life; for this purpose a general confession is very useful." 148 Hence, general confession is useful : (1) for adults who have not already made one ; (2) especially for such as have reason able misgivings about the validity of past confessions; (3) for those who wish to start a new and better life; (4) before enter ing on a new state of life, hence before marriage, before receiving Orders or making the profession in a religious community ; (5) at the time of a jubilee or mission, or of the spiritual exercises, for these are special occasions of grace and penance ; (6) for persons who are in danger of death, while their strength permits, and for those who have to expose their lives to any danger. Those who have once made a good general confession, espe cially if they are of mature age, may set their minds at ease on that portion of their existence, and such people should not be easily allowed to repeat their general confession unless for very weighty and exceptional reasons. These frequent repetitions do more harm than good. The desire of repeating the general con fession is usually a sign of a certain want of trust in God and of scrupulosity. If a penitent of this kind, after his general con fession, is uneasy about some important point in his former life, because he thinks he has not confessed something or failed to confess it properly, he may be allowed to mention it in one of his ordinary confessions. A repetition of the confession of his whole life may be allowed to a penitent who is free from scruples and is full of zeal to enter on a perfect life. On the other hand, it is well to advise and even to urge as a very useful means the practice of general confession at fixed intervals, say of a year, or a half year, or when the occa- »« Instit. catech. P. II. cp. 5, n. 11. 234 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE sions mentioned above afford an opportunity. If the confessor has to deal with a penitent who has already once or oftener made a general confession, he should ask when the last confession was made and why the penitent is anxious to make it again. The answer will suggest the course to be pursued by the confessor : (a) If the penitent can give no definite reason, but speaks of a general feeling of unrest, the confessor may ask what the cause of this unrest is, and whether in the preceding general confes sion the penitent has honestly said all he knew and as he knew it, whether he answered the questions put by the priest in all truth, whether he was sorry for his sins, and whether there was a real improvement in his way of living, or, on the other hand, whether he fell again into sin, and when. If a defect is discovered in the preceding general confession it must be repeated ; otherwise the penitent must be shown how groundless his fears are and en couraged to trust in God. The repetition of the general confession must be strictly forbidden, especially in the case of those troubled with scruples. At the most, the accusation of one or other sin which gives most uneasiness may be permitted, and the penitent must be engaged to think no more about the matter, but only to make acts of sorrow when these sins occur to his mind. (b) If, however, the penitent wishes to make a general confes sion because the last one was made a long time ago, and many mortal sins have been committed in the interval, he should be permitted to make it. The period which has been already com prised in a general confession may be treated with less detail, or quite omitted. A short repetition is, however, as a rule, rec ommended since the earlier life of the penitent throws light on his present condition, and he is always more content if the con fessor has, at least, some general perception of the former state of his soul, (c) If the penitent wishes to make a general confes sion for ascetic reasons, e.g. for the sake of humility, of greater purity of heart, etc., the question is to be settled as follows: If the penitent is a stranger, he must be referred to his usual con- GENERAL CONFESSION 235 fessor; if he has none, he must be recommended to choose one. If the penitent asks the confessor to undertake his direction, and on the strength of this to receive his general confession, the request is not to be granted at once. A simple confession may be made so that the priest may decide whether a general confes sion be necessary to gain the knowledge required for guiding the penitent, or at least useful, or on the contrary harmful where there exists a tendency to scruple. With one's ordinary peni tents, this procedure is not required in order to find out whether a general confession is or is not advantageous; the ascetical object may be obtained by mentioning some of the more humili ating sins or by well-prepared annual general confessions. In the special case of penitents who have been living in im purity the confessor should allow them only one general confes sion on that period of their lives lest by reflecting on those sins in their examination of conscience sinful promptings should arise in their imagination, the conscience thus incurring fresh stains where the object was to purify it; after one perfect con fession of these sins the penitent should not be allowed, or rather he should be forbidden, to make any further accusation of them ; a general accusation may, however, be made in subsequent confessions in these or other words of similar form: "I accuse myself of all sins committed against the sixth commandment." Moreover, it is not recommended to advise such penitents to make a general confession till they have combated that vice with success, unless some other pressing need exist for making a general confession.149 On the other hand, the confessor should not omit to advise those who are dangerously ill to make a general confession, or at least a summary of one; he may do this by asking whether anything in their past life gives uneasiness, whether they have always made good confessions and made good acts of contrition, 149 Cf. Renter, Neo-confessarim, P. III. cp. 2, n. 191 ; Miiller, Theol. moral. Lib. III. T. II. § 124. 236 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE whether they have been living in proximate occasions of sin, etc.; he will thus have many opportunities of righting at the last moment sacrilegious confessions and communions and res cuing souls from hell. Since general confession is so profitable, the confessor may, according to the advice of St. Alphonsus,150 with the exception of the above case, receive penitents who wish to make a general confession of their whole life or of part of it and that at once if they are prepared; he should be most willing to help them in it unless some obstacle, as, for instance, the number of penitents still waiting, or shortness of time, should prevent him from devoting more time to one penitent. He will sometimes find that a general confession which seemed to be only useful turns out to have been necessary. On the other hand, the confessor should refrain from forcing on a penitent a general confession which is not dictated by necessity.151 3. General confession is harmful to scrupulous and even to overanxious people; to such it brings not peace of mind but only more scruples ; hence they should be dissuaded from mak ing a general confession; it can only be allowed when there is complete certainty of the invalidity of past confessions. lf Scru pulous penitents," says St. Alphonsus, " would go on making and repeating general confessions forever in the hope of laying aside their anxiety, but the evil only grows, for after every general confession they fall again into new anxieties and scruples, thinking they have omitted some sin or failed to confess it prop erly, so that their uneasiness increases the oftener they repeat their confessions." 152 The confessor, in consequence, must be on his guard against such people and not allow himself to be deceived by them; he may permit them only to mention some sin which causes them very great trouble, and he must instruct 150 H. A. app. IV. § 1, n. 15. 151 S. Alph. Prax. Conf . n. 20. «* S. Alph. Vera Sponsa, cp. 18, § 2. GENERAL CONFESSION 237 them to atone for their defects by an act of sorrow. If, however, the priest is convinced of the invalidity of the former confes sions of such people, he should help them through their general confession and after that forbid any further examination. Moreover, only an experienced, prudent, and skillful confessor should undertake the direction of such persons, and a young confessor should recommend them to some holy man of greater age. Moreover, the general confession, as we have already mentioned, is a danger to all those for whom reflection on their past sins is a source of new temptations. It is dangerous for those who live in the voluntary and unnecessary occasion of sin and are always relapsing, who are not really in good disposi tions, and who make a general confession merely with a view of getting absolution more easily; they may be recognized by the sins committed since their last confession, and they may be admitted to a general confession after being exhorted to give up the occasions of sin and to combat their sinful habits.153 St. Leonard of Port Maurice says on this subject: "If the peni tent is living in the proximate occasion of sin without making a firm resolution to reform, or without giving signs of contrition, you must give him no encouragement to make a general confes sion, for the proximate occasion must first be removed and the habit overcome at least for a time. It would else be but labor lost, for general confession is not merely an institution for set ting right past confessions, but also for reforming one's life. If no purpose of the sort is in the mind of the penitent, there cannot even be a reasonable certainty that he will persevere in his reform, and there is no foundation upon which to build up virtue. Exhort him, and suggest means for avoiding the occa sions of evil and for overcoming sin; show him the utter im possibility of reform unless the occasions are given up, or, if this cannot be, unless they are made remote; urge him to pray 153 Marc, Instit. Morales, II. T. II. P. III. Tract. V. Diss. IT. n. 1712. 238 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE and put off the general confession to another time. Only on quite special occasions, e.g. missions, or where there are extraor dinary signs of penitence may any fruit be expected from the general confessions of those who live in occasions of sin and show no signs of improvement." 154 The practice of many confessors is to be deprecated, who, after hearing one or two confessions of a penitent, urge him to make a general confession, moved by imprudent zeal or in order to obtain better knowledge for the guidance of the penitent. Equally reprehensible is the conduct of many priests who give way to their penitents, allowing them to make often a general confession, or, at least, whenever they choose a new confessor. Such general confessions are quite useless and are a mere waste of time.155 31. The Manner of Hearing General Confession. As to the method of hearing general confessions, the following rules, the outcome of the long experience of learned confessors, should be observed : - 1. In order to be fit for this office a confessor should be well instructed and already experienced in hearing confessions; he must have great patience and zeal for souls, and during the whole course of the confession be very sympathetic and encour aging towards the penitent. 2. Ifxa penitent expresses his desire to make a general confes sion, the priest should first inquire whether it be necessary or useful. In order to discover this it is not recommended to ask the penitent bluntly if he has ever concealed a sin in his former confessions, or any question of the kind, for it is quite possible that the penitent, though guilty of the sin, may in his bewilder ment deny it and never again dare to confess it; it is much 154 Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 90-92. 155 Cf. Aertnys, Pract. Instit. Confess. 1. c. art. II. n. 247. MANNER OF HEARING GENERAL CONFESSION 239 better if the confessor ask the penitent why he wishes to make a general confession, whether he feels uneasy, etc. By such questions or the like he may try to discover if there have been sacrilegious confessions. He will often receive one or other of the following answers : (a) " Because I have kept sins back ;" he will then encourage his penitent, showing himself very kind towards him and urging him to be perfectly sincere. (6) "I have never yet made a general confession;" he may then find out if it be necessary or only useful, (c) " I have made a general confession before, but it was not a good one." He may then ask why the last general confession was not a good one; if the penitent can give no other reason, except his own fears, there is a fair presumption that he has to deal with an overanxious or scrupulous penitent, (d) " I heard in a sermon that my con fessions were bad;" here again the reason must be asked. (e) The following reason may also be given especially during a mission: "I want to begin a better life;" in such a case the general confession will be at least very useful. 3. If the general confession is necessary in consequence of former confessions having been sacrilegious or invalid, it must be made with great accuracy and the number and species must be given, so far as possible, just as though the sins had never been confessed before. It may easily happen, however, that the confessor, though convinced of the necessity of a general confession, cannot at once hear it for want of time or on account of the great number of penitents kept waiting; while the peni tent frequently cannot return again and is quite uninstructed or of weak intellect, or is really anxious to receive absolution or must receive it in order to fulfill the obligation of going to communion. In such a case, and especially when the penitent discloses at once to his confessor that his previous confessions have been bad by reason of not giving the number of the sins, and when the confessor can, from the account of sins committed in the past year, form a fair estimate of the past life of the sin- 240 THE BECIPIENT OF PENANCE ner, St. Alphonsus recommends that absolution should be given without any repetition of previous confessions. He assumes that the confessor is able to form a gross estimate as to the whole life from what he hears concerning one year, and that he further inquires whether the penitent, besides his ordinary sins, is conscious of any special ones in the course of his life. The detailed general confession may be put off to some more oppor tune occasion which can be arranged at once with the penitent. The holy Doctor adds another instance to those just mentioned — when the confessor after hearing the confession discovers that the penitent has failed in former confessions to give the number of his sins and when, at the same time, he has a distincta notitia of the sins and can form upon them a distinction indicium on the past career of the penitent; if, however, he have only a notitia confusa of the sins confessed, he is obliged to form a notitia distincta of the former mortal sins imperfectly confessed. With only a notitia confusa of the penitent's previous condition he may not give absolution, for the penitent is obliged to confess each single sin once, and the confessor is obliged to pronounce once a distinct judgment on the sins.156 In the case, however, where the general confession is not of necessity, these precautions in putting questions need not be adopted; if the concourse of penitents is very large, and if, as frequently occurs, in missions or on similar occasions the general confession cannot be put off to a more convenient time, the confessor may at least make a summary examination, asking only for the species of the sins and the time of duration of the habits of sin without laying stress on the exact number and circumstances of each particular sin. The priest must, of course, give the penitent sufficient time to unburden his conscience and to say all he wants to accuse himself of, even though such accusation be not necessary in this voluntary general confession, so that the penitent may I** S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 504; cf. Lugo 1. c. Disput. 16, nn. 600, 640; Ben- <;'er, Pastoraltheologie, II. Bd. § 171, S. 479 (2. Aufl.). MANNER OF HEARING GENERAL CONFESSION 241 leave the confessional with his mind quite at ease ; thus he may ask him in general: "Do you accuse yourself of all sinful thoughts, words, etc.?" On this account it is recommended to impress upon the penitent that in a voluntary general confes sion he is not bound to accuse himself of each particular sin; indeed this instruction is very useful, for a penitent may, in the course of his confession, incur sacrilege through false shame and an erroneous conscience by keeping back a sin which he imagines he is obliged to tell in general confession. It is an invariable rule to avoid too great haste or abruptness, otherwise the penitent is not put at his ease; hence it not infrequently happens that a penitent accuses himself of not having said all he wanted to say because the priest had been too quick. "The greatest difficulty in general confessions," says Blessed Leonard of Port Maurice, "is the accusation of the number of sins." To meet this the following rules will be of service: — (a) If the confessor can get at the precise number of sins, he is obliged to do so. (6) If the penitent cannot give the exact number, he must be asked to give about the number, as near as possible. For this purpose the priest will suggest numbers, and if the peni tent choose the largest number, a still larger one may be sug gested to see if the penitent will accuse himself also of that. (c) In the case of frequently recurring sins or habits of sin it is necessary to find out whether they have been of daily, weekly, or monthly occurrence. As to which of these periods will apply to the penitent depends on his state as learnt from his last con fession, and on the nature of the sin itself. In mentioning the period the confessor should always add a number, e.g. how often each week, three, four, or five times? and as we said under (6), the whole time during which the sin or habit of sin lasted must be found out. Finally it is useful in order to ascer tain the state of the penitent's soul to find out whether there has at any time been improvement and how long it lasted. 242 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE (d) It is the sententia communis and the teaching of St. Al- phonsus that by one and the same internal and external act a number of sins may be committed, when, for instance, the object aimed at in the sin includes several ends. A man, for instance, spreads a calumny about a community, — by so doing he in curs as many sins as there are persons in the community; this occurs usually in cases of enmity, scandal, etc. When, there fore, there is a diversitas objectorum totaliwn, questions must be put concerning the number of these objects. (e) In putting questions as to the number and species of the sin, care must be taken not to bewilder the penitent with ques tions ; if two or three questions do not effect the desired result, no more need be put ; for St. Alphonsus teaches : The priest, who, after two or three questions, fails to obtain any definite result, need not worry even if he cannot come to any clear deci sion, nam ex conscientiis implicatis et confusis moraliter impos- sibile est major em claritatem sperare.157 In conclusion, St. Leonard 158 remarks : If the confessor cannot get at the exact or probable number, or even the more frequent repetitions, it is in my opinion sufficient to find out the evil habit and the time of its duration. By this means the confessor, so far as is possible, will gain an idea of the state of his penitent and be able to form a judgment about him. The greater or less frequency of repetition must not, however, in volve other consequences, as in the case of stealing. Here great care must be used to find out the number of the sins and, in particular, the value of the sum stolen. 4. If the general confession is a voluntary one and the peni tent unprepared, it is not advisable to receive it, but to give the penitent some days to prepare by examining his conscience, making acts of contrition, and praying with more than usual fervor, — a method which will insure greater fruit in the general 157 Praxis Confess, cp. T. n. 20, 4. 158 Anleitung zur Geueralbeiclite, S. 64-70. MANNER OF HEARING GENERAL CONFESSION 243 confession. At the same time the confessor might show the penitent that a general confession is not such a difficult matter once it is undertaken courageously. If, however, the penitent will be prevented from returning to the priest to whom he wishes to make his general confession, the confession may be made at once. If the general confession is one of necessity, there is all the more reason for a good preparation. If, however, as fre quently happens, there is reason to fear that the penitent will not return, the confessor should not send him away to make his preparation, but receive the confession at once. As to the preparation required on the part of the penitent, especially with regard to the examination of conscience, the confessor will be careful not to exact a written accusation; such a process, as a rule, only causes confusion and adds to the burdens of the confessor. If the penitent is afraid of not being able to retain in his memory the results of his examination of conscience, he may confine himself to a quiet examination accord ing to his powers, and the confessor will help him. It may be permitted to the penitent to make notes of the more necessary points. If the confession is voluntary, the confessor may take the notes and read them for himself; if it be a general confes sion of necessity, the penitent himself should read them. 5. It is not per se required that a penitent declare first the sins committed since the last confession before repeating his former confessions, nor is he obliged to make a distinction between the sins committed since the last confession and those told in former confessions, since the sin is the same whether confessed or not, and it makes no difference that the former sins have been remitted because the sin is not the object of confes sion in so far as it is habitual or leaves enduring stain, but in so far as it has been actually committed.159 Still it is recommended to make the general confession precede the particular confession 159 S. Alph. 1. c. Lib. VI. n. 425, H. A. n. 4; Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 16, nn. 46- 49 ; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 200, Q. 2. 244 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE of the sins committed since the last time, in order that the priest may better ascertain the state of his penitent and assure himself that there is no obstacle to his giving absolution. 6. If the penitent is a well-instructed person and prepared, and is really desirous of confessing, the priest may allow him first to make his confession, and then he can put any questions that may be necessary, for many persons feel the need to reveal what is on their mind and have no peace until they do it. If, however, the penitent is persuaded that confession consists in the priest putting questions and the penitent answering, or if he wishes to make his confession in this manner, the confessor may adopt this mode. With ignorant penitents it is recom mended and is indeed preferable. The confessor must then give the penitent time and opportunity to mention anything that disturbs his peace of mind. 7. If the confessor receives a general confession by way of question and answer, he must adopt some method, going through the Ten Commandments, the Commandments of the Church, the Seven Capital Sins, and the duties of the state of life. For the sake of greater clearness and to avoid repetitions he might indeed bring all sins under the Ten Commandments, those even which are against the Commandments of the Church, the Seven Capital Sins, and other varieties of sins, for the Deca logue, as the Roman Catechism teaches, is the sum of all the Commandments. It is not, however, recommended to divide the confession into parts answering to the different periods of one's life, for such a practice protracts the confession and involves many burdensome repetitions; still in the case of the sixth Commandment it has its advantages, and questions might be put as to sins committed before marriage, during the married state, and after the death of the other party. Finally penitents who can be questioned as to the actus consummati should be asked according to the PLAN FOE MAKING A GENERAL CONFESSION 245 different species of the act as well as on the actus imperfecti, internal and external, with regard to the species. 8. The priest should not omit to exhort the penitent to ac knowledge honestly his sins, and not to conceal from false shame anything which he is obliged to tell.160 The confessor should never give any sign of astonishment or anger, no matter how numerous or atrocious the sins may be. Let him show rather that he would not be surprised at hearing even worse sins; let him come to the help of the penitent and even praise him for having succeeded in confessing some one or other of the more difficult sins. He may congratulate the penitent on winning a victory over himself and the devil, and encourage him again to complete candor and to make the confession as perfect as though it were to be the last of his life. 32. Plan for making a General Confession. In this paragraph we present a plan of questions suitable for a general confession and offer it especially for the guidance of younger confessors. A few preliminary remarks, however, are necessary to secure clearness. This plan need not contain all the sins which are treated of in moral theology, but only such as may or do actually occur. Nevertheless, if a confessor adhere to this schedule in his ques tions he may be quite satisfied as to the integrity of the con fession. Such a schedule should be as short as possible so that the con fessor may easily retain it in his head; hence the subdivisions, which he should know from his moral theology, may be omitted. Since in a general confession venial sins ought not to be lost sight of on account of their close connection with mortal sins and because they are of great moment in determining the state of 160 P. Heilig, Methodus Confess, generates . . . excipiendi ; Gury-Baller. 1. c. II. Tract, de Sacr. Pcenit. n. 519; Lehrnkuhl, 1. c. Sect. II. art. III. nn. 346, 349; Aertnys, Pract. Instit. Confessor. P. III. cp. VIII. art. III. 246 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE the penitent's soul, some of the more serious venial sins will find a place in the catalogue. The confessor should know, in addition, how a sin in itself and objectively venial may become mortal per accidens, and, on the other hand, how a sin grave ex genere suo may per accidens become venial.101 Moreover, the priest should be careful not to examine all penitents on every sin; a single question to which a negative answer is given will show that a whole series of other questions may be omitted, and thus he will only inquire after those sins which are likely to have been committed. In putting his ques tions he should pay due regard both to the physical and the spiritual condition of the penitent. From sins already confessed an indication may easily be drawn as to the further inquiries to be made, and while he omits many questions in the catalogue he may deem it advisable to add others. If he discovers in the penitent a habit of sin, he- must inquire how long it lasted, when it began, and when it was broken off. In all his questions he will observe the rules which hold on this subject in every confession; 162 in particular he should bear in mind the words of St. Leonard of Port Maurice : " Treat your penitent," he says, "as you would like to be treated yourself if you were in the same painful situation; receive him in a friendly manner and with affectionate kindness; encourage him to have confidence in you and to open his heart to you. Re frain from harsh and blunt forms of address which serve rather to irritate and embitter the penitent than to make him docile, obedient, and pliant; and even when he is gross and ignorant, rebellious to all advice and unwilling to fulfill his duties, do not, on that account, treat him harshly or frighten him by a dis play of overbearing rigor. Remember that in the confessional you must be a martyr of patience, seeking always to win the penitent by the gentleness of your manners, and that your duty 161 See § 24. 162 See § 49. PLAN FOR MAKING A GENERAL CONFESSION 247 is to incline rather to mildness than strictness. If your words are to have the power of gentle persuasiveness, you must deal with him in the spirit of our holy faith, and he will become humble and convinced of the truth of your words." 163 If the penitent is not already well known to the confessor, the latter must by a few questions at the beginning of the con fession inform himself as to the age, position, calling, and other circumstances of his penitent since such knowledge is necessary for the choice and arrangement of the questions to be put. If in the course of the confession some question must be asked on some rarely occurring and horrible sin, it should be pleaded by way of excuse that a special advantage of a general confes sion is to secure a thorough examination of conscience; and that this explains the unusual questions. If during the confession the discovery is made that the peni tent lies under some special obligation to avoid occasions of sin, to make restitution or some such burden, he should be told of it and disposed for it at once without waiting for the end of the confession for fear of forgetting it or of giving a wrong judg ment. All other directions, however, in the way of advice or instruction should only be given at the end for fear of annoying and repelling the penitent, and also in order to avoid prolixity and repetition. If on general principles the absolution ought to be put off and the penitent fails to show necessary disposi tions by signs of extraordinary sorrow and penitence, the con fession should be interrupted and not resumed till a decided improvement is seen. If the penitent is judged to be in good dispositions, the confession may go on after the promise of per forming the necessary obligations has been exacted, and the penitent should be reminded that if he is not sincerely deter mined to stand by his promises, his trouble is all in vain and his confession invalid, and that he is putting a seal on his con- 163 Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 88-90. 248 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE demnation by a new offense against God. In longer confessions it is a good practice even during the accusation (especially if some particularly grave sin be mentioned) to remind the peni tent of the greatness of his crimes, of God's goodness and grace by which he has been freed from all these great sins, and then to encourage him to make a thoroughly good confession. The penitent should also be reminded of all his bad confessions and communions, of his neglect of his Easter duties, etc. If it be observed that the penitent is unusually disturbed, the cause of it should be found out ; if it be the avowal of some one sin, the confessor should seek to obtain some hint about it and then push the questions so that the penitent has only to answer ; es or no ; thus a penitent may be consoled who is troubled because he has not sufficiently examined himself, or cannot ex press his meaning correctly or has forgotten what he wished to say. If no definite cause can be assigned, the confessor should encourage him in a general way, telling him that the confession is made to God, reminding him of the sacredness of the seal, recalling to him that the priest is also but a man, subject to faults and weaknesses; impressing upon him that the priest is ordained in order to sympathize with others, to help them by his kindness and patience, etc. Furthermore the way of begin ning a general confession depends on the circumstances of the penitent, and these must be inquired into at once.164 Having laid down these principles we enter into details : — I. Preliminary Questions. 1. The penitent should be asked his age, his condition of life, and his calling. 2. Then he may be asked if his previous confessions have been valid (the uninstructed should be assisted to form a correct 164 Leonard von Port Maur., Anleitung zur Generalbeichte ; Benger, Pastoraltheologie, Bd. III. S. 007-619 (1. Aufl.), Bd. II. S. 475-486 (•2. Aufl.) ; Schiich, Pastoraltheologie, § 320. PLAN FOR MAKING A GENERAL CONFESSION 249 judgment in the matter), whether he has ever intentionally con cealed a grave sin or a notable circumstance in confession - given intentionally the wrong number of his sins — examined his conscience carefully — tried to be really contrite at least for all graver sins. Then he may be asked if he has always faith fully performed the penance imposed. If the confessor discovers any sacrilegious confessions, he must at once ascertain their num ber as closely as possible, asking when the first bad confession was made, how long the habit lasted, whether any of them were set right, how often the penitent in this condition was accus tomed to confess or communicate, whether the Easter duties were neglected by reason of such confessions and communions, whether in making such confessions and communions the peni tent was conscious of committing sacrilege; whether during that period other Sacraments were received such as Confirmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction. If the penitent is persuaded that his confessions were not sacrilegious, but some grounds of suspicion remain, the confessor might on occasion of some accusation against the sixth Commandment, make inquiry if the sin has been confessed before; or he might even ask plainly, "You have never yet confessed this sin?" or, "You have never had the courage to confess this sin?" II. Sins against the Sixth and Ninth and the Other Commandments . 165 The confessor may next, in order to learn the general state of the penitent, ask quite generally: "Were you ever led astray when young? at what age? Did you indulge in any impure habits ? " If the priest discovers that the penitent is quite inno cent of such sins, he should go on at once to the other Command- 165 Some experienced confessors advise to begin with these commandments, because sins against holy purity are frequently the cause of invalid confes sions. Many penitents, however, would be shocked and disgusted at such a proceeding. 250 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE ments. He might perhaps ask further: "Were you troubled with temptations against holy purity? Had you to listen to bad conversation ? Has any one ever taken liberties with you ? " Sins of luxuria consummata may be reduced to four species, pollutio, fornicatio, sodomia, and bestialitas. These species have their actus imperfectos, external, for instance tactus, and internal, namely, delectatio morosa and desideria, and in addition may have three circumstances which change the nature of the sin, adulteriwn, incestus, sacrilegium. The questions may be mod eled on these four species, and in the case of each sin the cir cumstances inquired into which affect the species of the sin. Any compendium of Moral Theology will suggest the necessary detail.166 He may add : " Have you confessed all the sins you have committed against holy purity? Does anything else disturb your mind with regard to the sixth Commandment? Perhaps you can manage now to make a general confession and to set in order your past life." Against the First Commandment. 1. Against Faith. The confessor may ask whether the peni tent has been troubled by doubts against faith, or really doubted of the truths of faith and suggested such doubts to others; whether he has denied any truth of faith; whether he has acted or spoken against faith and before how many persons ; whether he has induced others to jeer or mock at faith; has he spoken against religion and priests? has he listened to speeches of others directed against faith and applauded or encouraged 166 The greatest prudence should be employed in putting these questions for fear of teaching evil or giving scandal. In this matter it is better that the completeness of the accusation should suffer. For instance, Ballerini disapproves of asking directly whether the accomplice is bound by vows, since such cases are rare, and when they occur the penitent would be cer tain to mention the circumstance spontaneously, while to put such a ques tion would frequently cause astonishment and give scandal. PLAN FOR MAKING A GENERAL CONFESSION 251 them? has he read, sold, given or recommended to others the reading of books and articles against faith? has he himself written for such publications? has he frequented the society of men who mocked at religion or were enemies of the faith? has he taken part in the religious services of non-Catholics ? has he joined any society which is hostile to religion? 2. Against Hope. Has he doubted of his salvation or of God's mercy? or of the possibility of reforming? has he pre sumed on God's mercy and put off his conversion ? 3. Against Charity. Has he under stress of suffering hated God? indulged feelings of indifference or resentment against God and holy things? has he murmured against God in his sufferings and crosses? has he banished God from his mind for long periods, neglected prayer? 4. Against the Reverence due to God. Has he believed in su perstitious practices and employed them? has he used sacred objects without reverence or for wrong purposes? has he re ceived any of the Sacraments (Penance, Holy Communion, Con firmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction) unworthily? has he desecrated holy places? has he injured persons consecrated to God? Against the Second Commandment. Has he blasphemed? before children? Has he a habit of swearing? Has he ever sworn to what was false, or to any thing of which he was doubtful? in a court of justice? to the injury of others? Has he been accustomed to use rash oaths? Against the Third Commandment and the Commandments of the Church. Has he by his own fault missed Mass on Sundays and holi days of obligation? has he absented himself by his own fault from a considerable portion of the services ? Has his behavior during the services been irreverent and scandalous? Has he done servile work without necessity on Sundays or holidays of 252 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE obligation? for how long? before others? or has he required such work from others? Has he broken the law of fasting without cause, or eaten meat on forbidden days without a dis pensation ? Has he neglected his Easter duties ? Against the Fourth Commandment. Are the parents still living ? Has he deliberately offended them by frequent disobedience in matters of moment (e.g. frequent ing certain company against their will, staying late in public houses, by not giving up bad companions, by neglecting reli gious duties or important business at home) ? Has he despised them in his heart? treated them with contempt or given them great trouble ? used harsh and contemptuous language to them ? wished them harm seriously? in the presence of others? Has he been ashamed of them? neglected them in their necessities, treated them badly, not carried out their last wishes ? Servants, etc., should be asked whether they are faithful to their master's services: have they offended him by contempt or rudeness? damaged his reputation with his neighbors? obeyed him in things forbidden? Have they given scandal to others in the house, particularly children? Masters, etc., should be asked whether they take due care of those under them. Have they treated them unjustly? per mitted evil practices? have they kept their servants to the practice of their religious duties and given them time for it? have they given their servants bad example or led them into sin? Parents and Superiors should be asked if they take proper care of their charges, or have squandered the family property. Do they correct and punish the children with prudence and without anger ? have they ever wished evil to befall them ? Do they watch over their children, keeping them from bad com panions, from sinful connections? Have they instructed the PLAN FOE MAKING A GENERAL CONFESSION 253 children in their religious duties? have they sent their children to irreligious schools? Have they given their children bad ex ample? Have they said or done anything sinful in presence of the children? Married people should be asked if they live together in peace ? have their quarrels given scandal to the children? Against the Fifth Commandment. Has the penitent let himself be carried away by anger? broken out into curses or wished grave damage to betide his neighbor? Has he rejoiced in his neighbor's misfortunes, enter tained hatred, and inflicted harm or intended to inflict it? Has he fostered enmities or refused to make satisfaction to those whom he has injured? Has he lived in enmity with others, with how many and for how long? Has he promised to make peace and kept his promise? Has he ever seriously damaged his health or attempted his life, or seriously thought of doing so ? Has he been in the habit of drinking, and been quite overcome by drink ? Has this been the occasion of quarrels or other sins ? Is it a habit ? Has he neglected his duties to his wife and chil dren in consequence, or ill treated them and destroyed the peace of the family? (The confessor must not forget his studies on occasio and consuetude when dealing with cases of this sort.) It might also be well to ask if the penitent has been hard in dealing with the poor in their grave needs and refused assist ance. Against the Seventh and Tenth Commandments. Has he entertained desires of stealing or of cheating his neigh bor ? Has he actually committed theft, or cheated his neighbor in doing business? Has he inflicted losses on any one? Has he paid his debts or put off for a long time the paying of them ? Has he made restitution and repaired the losses inflicted? Is he at least willing to make reparation ? If not, why not ? 254 TUE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE Against the Eighth Commandment. Has he told lies to the grave injury of his neighbor? Has he ever given false witness in a court of justice? Has he ever be trayed an important secret? Has he ever injured the reputa tion of his neighbor by revealing his faults without sufficient reason? to how many people was this communication made? Has he ever falsely accused his neighbor of a fault? to how many people? Did he restore the good name of the injured person ? and did he make good to him the losses resulting from the calumny? Has he made rash judgments in things of great moment, and has he communicated them to others ? With respect to the Seven Capital Sins the confessor may ask:- Has the penitent behaved in a proud, overbearing manner towards others ? Has he devoted himself to inordinate amassing of wealth and coveted the same? Has he omitted to give the alms which he ought? Has he helped his neighbor when he ought ? Has he indulged in envy of his neighbor on account of his fortune, his wealth, his graces, his virtues, etc. ? Has he rejoiced in his neighbor's misfortune, caused it or wished it? Has he neglected his work and duties through idleness, and injured his neighbor thereby? With regard to the nine ways of participating in the sin of another the confessor might ask: Has he boasted of his sins? which? Has he advised others to commit sin, or praised the sin of others, or commanded others to sin? Has he failed to prevent the sins of others when he could do so easily ? After the priest has put all the questions which he thinks necessary he should proceed to advise the penitent to reflect if there is anything else disturbing his conscience about which no questions have been put; and he should also remind him that this confession may be his last. He may then try to move the penitent to contrition and to a firm purpose of amendment by PLAN FOlt MAKING A GENERAL CONFESSION 255 the consideration of some effectual motives presented in a kind and fatherly manner. He might conclude with some words to this purpose : — " Now thank God with all your heart for the great mercy He has shown you ; if death had overtaken you while you were bur dened with so many grave sins, you would certainly be at the present moment in hell, but now make your mind quite easy and don't worry any more about these sins; I am now going to absolve you in God's name from them all and your soul will be as pure as when it came from the baptismal font ; but beware of sinning again and do not return God's mercy with ingratitude." The confessor will then give the penitent some directions how to reform his life; he must point out one or other of his sins that should be especially combated; and if at the same time he shows an interest in the penitent and promises to pray for him, the latter will go away consoled and encouraged to begin a new life in the Lord.167 167 Aertnys, 1. c. cp. 8, art. 4, nn. 251, 252 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 351 ; Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. n. 520; Heilig, Methodus Conf. gen. n. 10 ss. CHAPTER IV SATISFACTION 33. The Imposition of Penance by the Confessor. THERE is no question here of satisfaction in the wider sense which includes the restitution to be made for the infliction of spiritual or temporal loss. The subject which we propose to treat of is satisfaction in its restricted meaning (satisfactio) . It consists in the performance of those works of penance which according to the Council of Trent 168 are designed to preserve the new life acquired in the Sacrament, to repair the languor which remains as a relic of past sin, and at the same time to serve as a punishment for sin. As after the recovery from a severe ill ness the body is weakened, so after a spiritual cure the soul retains a weakness and an inclination to fall back into sin ; more over, as the Church teaches, the remission of guilt and eternal punishment does not always include the remission of all tempo ral punishment. The penance is imposed with a view of remov ing the last traces of weakness and of paying the debt of temporal punishment; under its first aspect it is called poena medicinalis, under the second, poena wndicativa. This satisfaction is partly sacramental, partly extra-sacra mental. The sacramental portion consists in the works which the confessor imposes in virtue of the power of the keys; the extra-sacramental in the works freely undertaken by the peni tent, as well as in the patient submission to the sufferings and crosses of this life. We are dealing at present with sacramental 168 Sess. XIV. De Poenit. cp. 8. 256 IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 257 satisfaction, which is an integral part of the Sacrament, as it is immediately connected with the power of the keys, and which is more efficacious as atonement in consequence of the applica tion of the merits of Jesus Christ.169 Both confessor and penitent have obligations with respect to this satisfaction. We will first consider the duty of the con fessor in the matter. I. The confessor is bound to impose some penance on every penitent who receives absolution and who is capable of doing penance. The tradition of the Fathers, the constant practice of the Church, and the express declaration of the Council of Trent agree in maintaining that the penance is an integral part of the Sacrament. The text of the Council170 runs as follows: "It is therefore the duty of priests to impose, as reason and pru dence may suggest, wholesome and appropriate penances with due regard for the nature of the sin and the strength of the penitent, lest, by being indulgent towards sin and treating the penitent too tenderly in giving the very lightest penance for grave sins they become themselves participators in the sins of others. Let them keep in view that the satisfaction which they impose is designed not only to preserve the new life and to heal infirmity but also to punish and destroy past sin; for the power of the keys was given not only to loose but also to bind." The confessor must impose a penance not only when mortal sins, but also when venial sins, or mortal sins already absolved, are confessed. As often as absolution is given a pen- 169 S. Thorn. Amplius valet ad expiandum peccatum quam si proprio arlntrio homo faceret idem opus. Quodl. Lib. 3, Q. 14. Summa Theol. Supplem. Q. 12-15; Suarez, De Sacr. Poenit. Disp. 37 per 10 Sectiones, Disp. 38, Sect. 1 and 2 ; Lugo, De Sacr. Poanit. Disp. 24 per 5 Sectiones ; Billuart, Compend. Theol. Tom. VI. De Sacr. Poenit. Diss. VIII. a. I. 6-8; cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. Vol. V. Tract. X. Sect V. cp. I. ri. 478 ss. ; Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, II. Tl. § 42, Die Genugthuung, S. 538 ss. "o Sess. XIV. cp. 8. 258 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE ance must be imposed — (a) because the penance belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament, (6) that the penitent may not be deprived of the sacramental fruits of satisfaction, (c) that justice and right may be done. II. This duty of imposing a penance urges per se sub peccato mortali when there is question of mortal sins not yet remitted by the power of the keys; where the matter is only venial sin or materia libera, the obligation is binding only sub levi. Hence a priest sins mortally by failing to give a penance to a penitent who confesses sins not yet directly forgiven; in the case of a penitent who presents only materia libera, the confessor sins venially (probabiliter) ob parvitatem material. III. At times there may be no sin in failing to give a penance. This can happen : — (a) When absolution is given to a penitent in articulo mortis, especially if he be unconscious. St. Alphonsus, however, recom mends, and laudably, that even a dying penitent should receive some light and easy penance, if there be time to do it and the penitent can perform it, e.g. to kiss the crucifix, to pronounce the names of Jesus and Mary, or to make at least an internal act of love in order that the Sacrament may have its due comple ment and the dying person gain some fruit from the sacramental satisfaction. The confessor might himself help the penitent by reciting the prayers for him, holding the crucifix to him; this will also be a means of comforting and consoling the dying man.171 (b) If a perplexed or scrupulous penitent returns frequently to confess sins that he had forgotten, and if nearly every time there is reason for giving absolution, the confessor satisfies his obligations by again imposing the previous penance without adding another or by prescribing it as sufficient for all the sins mentioned in confession.172 171 S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. nn. 506, 507; H. Ap. n. 47. 172 Busenbaum, Medulla, Lib. VI. Tract. IV. cp. I. De Satisfact. Art. T; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 513; Lugo, Disp. 25, n. 50. IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 259 IV. The confessor is bound to give a suitable and wholesome penance, punitive as well as medicinal, proportioned to the num ber and gravity of the sins and adapted to the individual peni tent. This is the express teaching of the Council of Trent.173 The choice of the penance is not left to the caprice of the con fessor. Special directions are laid down for him by the Church, and these he must follow sub gram. The Council draws a dis tinction between pcencc vindicative and medicinales, and the confessor has to inflict these in his capacity of judge and healer of souls. But to avoid misunderstanding it must be borne in mind that the whole power and authority of inflicting penances or of binding the faithful is vested in the confessor as judge. As physician the great object of the confessor must be to heal the wounds of the soul and to provide against relapses, but here he can only insist on the necessary means, and that simply because he expresses what the penitent is bound to do already by natural and divine law. The case is quite different when we regard the confessor as judge; in this capacity he has power to punish and bind the penitent. In the choice of the works of penance which he im poses in his quality of judge, he may use his knowledge as physi cian, and it is a course to be commended if he imposes such penances as will help to salvation, heal the spiritual maladies and safeguard the penitent against relapses.174 In this way the confessor falls in with the prescriptions of the Council by giv ing penances which are in part punitive, in part medicinal ; they are punitive if in any way they oppose our sensuality or our pride; and they are medicinal when they are of a kind to cut away the causes and roots of sin, to mortify our irregular incli nations, to strengthen the will, to remove occasions of sin, to save us from relapses and to confirm us in virtue. In accord ance with the maxim "contraria contrariis curantur" those good ™ Sess. XIV. cp. 8. 174 Cf . Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sect. IT. cp. TIT. Satisfactio, 11. 355. 260 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE works are generally prescribed which are directly contrary to the sins committed, hence the prescription of the Roman ritual to impose as penances almsgiving upon the avaricious, fasting or other bodily mortifications upon the sensual, humiliating works upon the proud, exercises of devotion for the tepid.175 All works of satisfaction or penance may be reduced to the three heads of Prayer, Fasting, Almsdeeds. Under prayer, for instance, may be grouped all works of piety and devotion, par ticularly everything that may be understood as related to the knowledge of God; more frequent prayer, daily examination of conscience, daily Mass, meditation (especially on the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ and the four last things), spiritual reading, more frequent confession, frequent repetition of acts of the theological virtues, thought of the presence of God, devo tion to our Blessed Lady — all of which are irksome and con trary to our corrupt nature and partake in consequence of the nature of a penance. Under the head of fasting may be in cluded not only abstention from meat and drink, but every kind of mortification, hence the denial of even lawful pleasures, early rising in the morning, the cutting down of little comforts, kneel ing at prayer, etc. And under almsgiving we may comprise all works of corporal and spiritual mercy. These three classes of good works correspond to the three roots of sin, — the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life; for fasting is directed against the concupiscence of the flesh, almsgiving against the concu piscence of the eyes, and prayer against the pride of life.176 Even purely interior acts (opera mere interiora) may be im posed : some theologians contradict this statement on the plea that human authority is not empowered to enjoin such acts, but here the question is not about human authority but of divine power given to men.177 175 Rituale Rom. De Sacram. Poenit. 176 S. Thorn. Suppl. Q. 15, a. 3. 177 S. Alph. cum communi sententia. Lib. VI. 1. c. IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 261 The confessor may also give as a penance works to be done for the souls in purgatory, for though this satisfaction in se is directed to the benefit of the holy souls it is a good work, and by its union with the Sacrament has power ex opere operato to les sen the temporal debt of the penitent.178 Indeed the confessor may impose as penance some good work which has already been started, not precisely as a good work but so far as it expresses under the new circumstances obedi ence, humility, and the denial of one's own will. It may be observed, however, what St. Alphonsus remarks, that it is rarely advisable to impose such a penance even with another good work attached. A work which one is already bound to do may be imposed as a penance since it may be ex natura sua satisfactory and is capa ble of acquiring a greater satisfactory effect ; but such work can be considered as a sacramental penance only when the confessor has expressly declared so, nor is it advisable that such works should be so imposed, unless indeed there exist some urgent reason for it on the part of the penitent, — his weakness, for ex ample. If such work (aliunde debitum) be imposed, its omission is a double sin.179 A penance may be given to be performed in case of a relapse, according to the opinion of eminent theologians such as Suarez, Laymann, and St. Alphonsus Liguori; so that if the condition be fulfilled, i.e. if the sinner relapse, the penance must be carried out. A confessor giving only a penance of that kind would be very far from satisfying his obligations.180 A public penance, i.e., a penance to be done before others, of such a nature that bystanders could infer that the penitent had incurred grave sin, cannot be imposed by a confessor for secret sins, for such an infliction would be an indirect violation of the 178 S. Alph. ibid.; Scavini, L c. n. 383; S. Thorn. Quodl. 3, a. 28. 179 This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus cum innumeris scriptoribus contra raucos (n. 513). i*> S. Alph. 1. c. n. 524. 262 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE seal, and besides it is expressly forbidden by the Roman Ritual. For public sins a public penance may be inflicted, and the Coun cil of Trent insists upon it as a way of repairing scandal. Here there is no breach of the seal, for it is question of notorious sin. The confessor should only insist, however, on a public penance when he is convinced of the necessity of that step for repairing scandal. If the confessor feels called upon to impose such a penance, and the penitent declines to do it, absolution cannot be given. In general, any scandal given may be set right by an evident reform in the life of the penitent, if, for instance, he approach the Sacraments more frequently, visit the Church, hear Mass, join a sodality, etc.181 Moreover, not everything done in the presence of others, which the penitent could easily undertake of his own free will, need be regarded as a public penance. It need be no matter of anxiety to the confessor if the penitent reveals to others that such or such a practice is a penance imposed by the priest. Finally the confessor must carefully avoid enjoining any practices which are needlessly repugnant to the penitent and which there is reason to fear he will shirk. For instance, tell ing the children to beg pardon of their parents, or the penitent to pray in the Church with the arms stretched out in the form of a cross. Lehmkuhl justly remarks that such penances are a clear sign of a confessor's want of prudence and may give occa sion to many sacrileges.182 There is left a large choice for the confessor in the matter of penances. He is bound, however, by the prescriptions of the Council of Trent to impose works of penance quantum spiritus et prudentia suggesserit, but also to consider the qualitas criminum and the facultas pcenitentium. Thus he must bear in mind the gravity of the sin and the condition of the penitent; in this way a prudent mean may be kept between too great mildness "i Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. n. 512. 182 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 356 (8). IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 263 and excessive strictness. The priest should avoid being too easy, for fear, as the Council says, of participating in the guilt of others and sacrificing .God's cause to an indulgence which may be easily attributed to human respect or other unworthy causes. To avoid this danger the Roman Catechism recom mends the study of the old penitential canons where each sin has its own fixed punishment. It is true that the discipline has been altered since then but its spirit remains, and the zeal of the priest for the cause of his Lord should be no less fervent than that of the first ages of the Church. On the other hand, how ever, undue rigor is to be avoided. The strictness should not be founded on self-love, prejudice, ostentation, nor on a natu rally stern temperament, nor on want of common sense, etc., otherwise the penitent may be driven to despair, and souls lost instead of being won. The tribunal of penance should resemble as closely as possible God's own tribunal, and as God is not only just but merciful, so the priest should never separate these two attributes. It is often a good thing to let the penitent know that he has deserved a severer penance, but that the ever gentle spirit of the Church imposes only a light one, leaving the peni tent free to undertake other works of satisfaction if his zeal prompt him thereto. It is matter of experience that penances extended over too long a period do not always succeed in their object, for since they are frequently not performed they may easily prove a snare to the penitent instead of being a help. If the priest is in doubt whether to adopt a strict or a mild line of conduct in any particular case, he may recall the beautiful words of St. John Chrysostom : 183 " Is it not easier to render an account of excessive mercy than of excessive severity ? Can the steward be close-handed where the master is so liberal? If, then, God is so good why should His minister be severe? If your object is to pose as a saint, be austere towards yourself and mild towards others." m 183 Homil. 43 in Matth. c. 23. ™ Cf. Martin, Moral. S. 591. 264 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE V. For mortal sin a poenitentia simpliciter gravis should be given, for venial sin a poenitentia levis; and a confessor would sin gravely if without sufficient reason he should impose for mortal sin a poenitentia in se levis, for he would neither punish the sin nor give his penitent the means of salvation. In the case of sins doubtfully mortal, whether considered subjectively or objectively, he is not obliged to impose a severe penance.185 Whatever in the present discipline of the Church is imposed sub gravi is considered as materia gravis for a penance. The following, for instance: five decades of the Rosary, the Litany of the Saints with the accompanying prayers; while as materia levis are reckoned: one psalm (of moderate length), the Litany of Loretto, five Our Fathers and five Hail Mary's, etc. Any prayer corresponding in length to a little hour of the Breviary counts for materia levis, for though the omission of one of these little hours is a mortal sin, this is not in virtue of the prayer itself, but because the recitation of the Breviary is a public and official act and done in the name of the whole Church. If the penitent has committed many mortal sins, the penance can hardly be increased in a strict proportion. In this case the imposition of a penance corresponding to one mortal sin is not sufficient unless special reasons exist for not giving a heavier penalty. VI. There are many reasons for which a confessor may be justified in giving a smaller penance than is due to the number and gravity of the sins, and this diminution may be absolute as well as relative. For instance : — 1. A penitent is prostrated by a severe illness and unable to perform a longer penance. The priest should exhort him to offer up his sufferings as satisfaction for his sins, and if the sins have been very grave the priest ought to be willing to take upon himself part of the penance.186 185 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 516, H. A. n. 55; Sporer, 1. c. n. 588. 186 Cf. Kit. Roman, tit. III. cp. T. n. 25. IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 265 2. When there is extraordinary sorrow. This in se is suffi cient reason for diminishing the penance, for the greater such sorrow the greater is the remission of temporal punishment. On the other hand, such a penitent is willing to accept a very severe penance; and if we read of certain holy men imposing only a slight penance, we must remember that they either made up for it in their own person or induced the penitent to practice of his own free will some austerity. 3. A confessor may see that his penitent is very weak spiritu ally and not willing to carry out a severe penance, although he may have no doubt as to his contrition and resolution of amend ment. Such a case may call for the expedient of adding to a small penance some other practices which the penitent must fulfill on other accounts, e.g. to hear Mass on Sunday, etc., and the confessor would do well to choose such practices as the penitent has been in the habit of neglecting.187 We will now mention the occasions in which a confessor may impose a penance in accordance, indeed, with the Church's precepts as to materia gravis, but less than what seems propor tioned to the number and gravity of the sins : — 1. When there is great, though not quite extraordinary, con trition. 2. On the occasion of a jubilee or some other plenary indul gence ; but to refrain for such a reason from giving any penance at all would be quite wrong and against the distinct declaration of Benedict XIV, Gonstit. " Inter prccteritos." 3. When there is fear that the penitent, through spiritual weakness, may fail to perform the penance which would cor respond to his sins. 4. When there is hope that a smaller penance will induce the penitent to receive the Sacraments oftener and with greater spiritual benefit; indeed, this seems to be the chief reason why "7 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 513. 266 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE the Church has tempered in our days the severity of her peni tential discipline. 5. When the confessor intends to do the penance which he believes he dare not lay upon his penitent, as, for instance, when St. Francis Xavier disciplined himself to satisfy for the sins of his penitents. The sufficiency of this vicarious penance rests on the Catholic doctrine of the Communion of Saints. On the other hand, the proposition that a penitent can, of his own authority, appoint another to do the penance for him has been condemned by Alexander VII. 6. When there is hope of inducing the penitent by means of a smaller penance to do other good works on his own account. 7. -When the penitent has already done penance and is in the habit of practicing good works. It is, however, always recommended to tell the penitent that the penance is very much less than he deserves.188 VII. For venial sins or materia libera the confessor may im pose a heavy or a light penance but not sub gram; but if he imposes a light penance for mortal sin such penance may bind only sub levi, but the very fact of imposing a heavy penance for mortal sin means that the obligation is sub gravi, unless he ex pressly declares his intention of not so binding.189 In treating the question of the obligation on the penitent of carrying out the penance and the intention of the confessor in the matter, we must keep in mind the parallel instances of the binding force of laws. The legislator cannot bind the conscience sub gravi in a matter which, regarded objectively, is of small moment; while grave matter when prescribed ex gravi causa induces a strict obligation per se, though the legislator may have the power only to enforce it under pain of venial sin. This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus with the sententia communior 188 S. Alph. 1. c. mi. 509, 510, 526 ; II. Ap. mi. 49, 50; Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 25, n. 60; Renter, 1. c. p. 4, mi. 591, 404; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. nn. 489, 493. «» S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 517, 518. IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 267 et valde probabilis as regards the obligation of laws and the law giver. When, then, the confessor imposes a penance, he is at the same time passing a law which must be obeyed. Many theologians deny that the confessor can impose for mortal sin a heavy penance only sub levi because he is simply God's minister, and in consequence must act in accordance with the institution of the Sacrament without attempting to diminish its rigor.190 On the other hand, the sententia communior et valde probabilis gives the confessor the right because, though he is the vicar of God, he is appointed by Christ as actual judge and legislator who, in virtue of his powers, looses by forgiving sic and binds by imposing penance; so that the obligation of the penance is not a consequence of the Sacrament but of the pre cept of the confessor.191 Still the confessor would not be justi fied in practically disregarding the first opinion, for, as St. Alphonsus teaches, he must obey the Council of Trent in its decision that ordinarily a grave opus is to be imposed sub gram even though the penance be slight in comparison to the number and heinousness of the sins. The opinion may, however, be used in this way. The confessor, after giving a severe penance sub gram, may add a still more severe penance sub levi; if this latter be fulfilled by the penitent, he makes full sacramental satisfaction; if he neglect it, there is at least no great respon sibility. St. Alphonsus notices that this is a very good way of dealing with weak penitents, for all good works have a satis factory power and a weak penitent is thus not exposed to occa sion of grave sin; at the same time what Aertnys observes is also to be borne in mind, namely, that in our days, owing to the decay of fervor, such a method is seldom to be recommended.192 The confessor may give the penance immediately after the 190 Thus, among others, Lugo. 191 Thus, among others, Suarez, Fillince, Segneri, St. Alphon. 1. c. n. 518. 192 Aertnys, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. Tract. V. De Pcenit. cp. III. art. IV n. 206, Q. 4. 268 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE absolution, but it is more correct to give it beforehand, as that is the custom in the Church, and the proper order of justice requires that the penitent should show himself disposed to under take his penance before absolution is given.193 In concluding this article we give a list of penances which may be imposed according to the principles already given : - Attendance at holy Mass, the Rosary or the Stations of the Cross (these should not be given to people who are not accus tomed to the devotions, and in regard to the Stations of the Cross, the embarrassment that many experience in performing public devotions should be taken into account), the Seven Peni tential Psalms, the Litany of the Saints, the Litany of Loretto or some other litany, the Prayer to the Five Wounds, to com mend one's self to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary morning and evening while reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary, to say every day a certain number (not too many) of short prayers — e.g. to say the Hail Mary three times morning and evening (St. Alphonsus used to give his penitents this penance, adding the invocation "My Mother, preserve me from offending God this day," and when the penitents were not accustomed to this form of devotion he used at least to recommend it), to ex amine the conscience daily and to excite acts of contrition, to read some short extracts from a pious book approved by tho confessor, such as the Imitation of Christ, to make a meditation, or after reading carefully some subject such as the Four Last Things or the Sufferings of Christ to reflect upon it for a short while, to devote a short time every day to eliciting acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, to hear sermons, to receive the Sac raments on certain fixed days, to renew the resolutions made at the last confession, not thoughtlessly but with all earnest ness, and to hold to them steadfastly now in honor of the Sacred Heart, at another time in honor of the Blessed Virgin, and again 193 S. Alph. 1. c. u. 514 (in fine). IMPOSITION OF PENANCE BY THE CONFESSOR 269 in honor of some one among the saints with a petition for their help, to make some fervent ejaculation every time the clock strikes (when the confessor gives this or similar practices as a penance he might remind the penitents to make up the number of times missed if by chance they forget it). Fasting (though this should be very seldom given and then only with great caution) or an occasional mortification at meal time ; to refrain from some particular dish, or from wine or other intoxicating liquor, either for a fixed period or a certain number of times; still more prudence is to be exercised in imposing other bodily mortifications — indeed they should be permitted only with great reserve — praying with arms extended (unseen, of course, by others), to pray on bended knees, to rise at a fixed hour in the morning, to avoid unprofitable conversation, etc., to give alms, to visit the poor and the sick, to help them, and to do lowly offices for them, etc.194 Which of these penances should be imposed is a matter de pending on the sins and disposition of the penitent. The choice of penance is an affair of considerable moment with regard to the well-being and reformation of the penitent, and it is a neg lect of duty to impose on every occasion without distinction the recital of a prayer. In addition, the confessor should observe the wholesome advice which has been given by men distinguished alike for sanctity and learning. St. Antoninus writes : 195 " The priest should give such a pen ance as he thinks the penitent will perform. If a man, after accusing himself of grave sin, declares that he cannot do a severe penance, the confessor must reason with him, pointing out the gravity of his offenses and the severe punishments he has de served, and after that give him some penance such as he can be persuaded to undertake; and if the priest does not obtain per- 194 Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. Appendix, n. 535. Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. n. 200; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 368. i»« Summa Theol. P. III. tit. 17, s. 20. 270 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE feet success, he may rejoice, at least, that he has rescued a soul from hell if not from purgatory; hence, on no account, should he send a penitent away in despair or discouragement. It is better to give him a Pater Noster or some other slight penance and make the good works which he does or his sufferings supply for the rest. A man who shows real sorrow and is ready to do all that he ought, but declares that a heavy penance is beyond him should never, no matter how he may have sinned, be sent away without absolution lest he fall into despair." St. Charles Borromeo recommends the confessor to impose such penance as he thinks the man will do ; hence he may occa sionally ask the penitent if he can perform the penance given; and if the latter expresses his doubts about fulfilling it, the con fessor may change the penance or make it easier.196 The saint also appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas, who warns the confessor not to burden his penitents with heavy penances,197 for as a smouldering fire may be put out by heaping too much fuel upon it, so the feeble contrition which has only just been excited in the heart of the penitent may be crushed out by a severe penance, and despair may be the consequence. Hence it is better to point out to the penitent what a big penance he deserves and to give him a smaller one such as he will be ready to fulfill, by which he will accustom himself to the bigger one which the confessor would not have ventured to impose. Finally St. Alphonsus 198 may be heard on this subject : "How imprudent is the conduct of those priests who give penances which they foresee will never be done. Oh, how many ignorant confessors there are who thoughtlessly absolve penitents living in the proximate occasion of sin or in bad dispositions; and yet such confessors are persuaded for some incomprehensible reason that they are ministering to the health of souls by imposing heavy penances. The result is that the penitents, having agreed 196 Instruct. Confess, cp. 20. 197 Quodl. 3, a. 28; cf. Opusc. 65, § 4. 198 Lib. VI. n. 510. ACCEPTANCE OF PENANCE BY THE PENITENT 271 to the penance for fear of being refused absolution, relapse again, after a short time, because they were never taught to adopt any safeguards against sin, omit the penance, and, terrified by its severity, keep away from the Sacrament so as to spend a great portion of their lives in sin." 34. The Acceptance and Performance of the Penance by the Penitent. I. The penitent is obliged to accept willingly the penance imposed and to perform it exactly; for as the duty devolves on the priest of securing the integrity of the Sacrament by giving the penance, the penitent is, in turn, bound to accept it and carry it out. The duty is of strict obligation ex genere suo, so that the peni tent would sin gravely by omitting a grave penance imposed sub gravi, or a considerable portion of it. We have already seen what is to be considered grave in this matter.199 II. The penitent is obliged to perform the penance enjoined by the confessor, but no limit of time is determined within which it must be done. An unreasonably long delay, however, might easily become a grave matter. To determine how far delay may involve grave sin we must take into consideration whether time is a substantial element in the penance. For example : (1) whether the confessor has fixed a day and of set purpose, for the appointing of a day does not always imply a fixed intention on the confessor's part; indeed, generally speaking, it is not a mortal sin to postpone a fast appointed for Friday to the following Saturday.200 (2) If some work has been prescribed to be done within a given time after the confession, and it is the intention of the confessor that there should be no interruption, its omission, even for one day if it amount to a materia gravis, may be a mortal sin, unless i» S. Alph. 1. c. n. 517. 20° S. Alph. 1. c. n. 521. 272 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE the confessor has given leave to substitute one day for another or where his consent to a change may be fairly presumed. (3) If the postponement of the work imposed reduced the penance to little or nothing, as, for example, if the confessor enjoined on the penitent to approach the Sacraments in a week and the penitent put it off for a month ; to delay the weekly communion for a day or two or the monthly communion to a period riot longer than a week would, apart from other considerations, amount only to a venial sin.201 There is no mortal sin in putting off the penance even for a considerable time as long as the time fixed for its performance is not a substantial part of the work imposed. A delay of six months would, according to St. Alphonsus, certainly constitute a mortal sin; the great factor in determining the gravity of the offense will be the danger of forgetting the penance or of being unable to carry it out.202 If a penance is enjoined which has to be performed daily for a considerable period, and which is also a work prescribed by the commandments of the Church, it may be presumed that the confessor never intended a double performance of the work un less he expressly declared such an intention. On the other hand, if it is enjoined once or twice or even oftener without indicating any special day, the penitent cannot satisfy the double obliga tion by the one act ; for example, a man who is told to hear Mass three times cannot satisfy by making one of the Masses the Sunday Mass of obligation, unless this be expressly granted by his confessor, nor would he fulfill his duty by hearing three Masses simultaneously, because such would never be the inten tion of the confessor. If, however, a man is enjoined to hear Mass daily, he is not obliged to hear two Masses on Sundays.203 201 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 521 ; II. A. n. 57 ; Mazzotta, 1. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. V. cp. 2. 202 Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 25, Sect. 5, n. 92 ; Sanchez in decalog. 1. 4, c. 10, n. 21 ; Elbel, de Pcenit. n. 229. 5203 Mazzotta, 1. c.; Gury II. n. 535; S. Alph. H. A. n. 57. ACCEPTANCE OF PENANCE BY THE PENITENT 273 If the penitent has certain prayers to say for his penance, they may be recited during a Mass of obligation, for the two duties may be fulfilled at the same time unless the confessor rule it otherwise. It is a useful and excellent practice to remind the penitent that he may say his penance during the time of Mass, especially if his circumstances be such that he can hardly com mand other available time.204 If the penitent fails to perform his penance within the pre scribed time, he is not on that account freed from the obligation of accomplishing it; for the confessor intends first the penance, then the time-limit, and the latter is fixed non ad finiendam sed ad urgendam obligationem. Even when the penitent has fallen into mortal sin, he may still perform his penance and so satisfy his obligation in that matter, but he does not obtain the fruits of satisfaction. When the penitent does what he has been told he fulfills substantially his duty; the manner or mode of fulfilling it (namely, in the state of grace) does not come under the command. By the fact, however, of not being in the state of grace his works cannot be de condigno satisfactory, and so cannot merit for him the release from temporal punishment. It is certain that no new mortal sin is contracted by a penitent who performs his penance in a state of mortal sin, though, according to a probable opinion sup ported by St. Alphonsus,205 there is a venial sin in consequence of the hindrance offered to the effects of the Sacrament. Some theologians 20G also teach that when such a penitent regains the state of grace (obice remoto) the penance effects satisfaction and remission of temporal punishment ex opere operato, and this doc trine is valde probabilis. In addition to the sacramental satisfaction the penitent should 204 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 364. 205 Lib. VI. n. 523. 206 Suarez, De Pcen. Disp. 38, s. 8, n. 5; Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 25, s. 3, n. 39 ; Laymann, Theol. Mor. Lib. V. Tract. VI. cp. 15, n. 15; Lacroix, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1215, and many others. 274 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE undertake some penance on his own initiative, especially where that enjoined by the priest is small with regard to the gravity of the sin. This extra-sacramental satisfaction will be supple mented by the prayer in which the Church, in virtue of the merits of Christ and His saints, confers on extra-sacramental works the power of reducing the debt of temporal punishment. 35. The Commutation of the Penance. If, for some good reason, the penitent discovers that the pen ance is too severe, he should mention the circumstance to his confessor that he may change it ; and if the penitent has under taken a penance which later on presents great difficulties in its fulfilment, he should consult some priest equipped with the neces sary powers for a commutation. But there should be a good reason, and not mere weakness, sensuality, or laziness, which usually counsel avoidance of all severity and self-conquest or sacrifice for God and the good of one's soul. Self-love and self-indulgence easily persuade us that what is difficult is impossible, and we have seen that the very aim of penance is to punish in the strict sense of the word ; it ought to be both a chastisement and a means of salvation. If the penitent shrinks from the penance and asks for a mitigation, the confessor should in all kindness consider the motive and act accordingly. If he can find no sufficient reason but only a pre text of self-love and self-indulgence, he must tell the penitent so and endeavor to persuade him to undertake the penance, otherwise absolution cannot be given. When the petition is reasonable the penance may be changed. A reasonable penance cannot be declined by the penitent without his incurring thereby grave sin, for when once he has submitted his case to the confessor he ought to abide by the latter's decision, since the law of God requires that the con fessor should inflict a suitable penance and that the penitent THE COMMUTATION OF THE PENANCE 275 should accept it.207 There is, however, a great difference between refusing a penance and asking for its mitigation. Under no circumstances may the penitent himself change the penance, even for a work objectively more perfect, for the sacramental satisfaction must be imposed by the minister of the Sacrament, and the penitent has no right to annul or commute on his own authority the sentence pronounced by the judge. If, now, the penitent is convinced on sufficient grounds that the penance is exorbitant and he cannot persuade the confessor to make it easier, he is at liberty to go away without absolution and present his case to another priest, repeating, of course, his confession.208 If, however, his grounds are defective, he may easily incur a venial sin by such procedure.209 A really well-dis posed penitent, therefore, will hardly incur grave sin if, conscious of his weakness, he objects to a penance as too hard and seeks absolution from another confessor, so long, of course, as he does not seek out one who is known for his criminal laxity. If a man after absolution finds the penance too difficult of performance, he may get it changed either by the same priest or by another. This commutation can be made only in confession, in virtue of the absolution which has been already given or is to be given, for it is only the absolution by which an effect ex opere operato can be produced in the penitent, and it is the absolution which gives the satisfactory efficacy ex opere operato to the penance which has been or is to be imposed.210 Hence the confessor immediately after the absolution can certainly change the penance because, morally speaking, the 207 Mazzotta, 1. c. Q. 5 ; cf . 2 Suarez, 1. c. Disp. 38, s. 7. Lugo, 1. c. Disp. 25, n. 68, says that this doctrine is verum et certum, and is a direct conse quence of the teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV. cp. 8) ; cf. Elbel, 1. c. n. 227. 208 S. Alph. 1. c. nn. 515, 516 ; Mazzotta, 1. c. 209 Lugo, 1. c. n. 77. 210 Lugo, De Pcenit. Disp. 25, nn. 107-110. Cf. Disp. 15, n. 107. 276 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE judicial action is still in progress. Though some theologians extend this power (of changing the penance in virtue of the ab solution imparted) over two or three days, the preference is to be given to the opinion of St. Alphonsus,211 who restricts the period to the time immediately after the absolution, for, as a matter of fact, the judicium sacramentale is then completed. If, however, the penitent and confessor are of the other opinion, which is not devoid of extrinsic probability, they may act upon it, since it is not a question of an essential part of the Sacrament; if there were question of the essence of the Sacrament, an injury would be done both to the Sacrament and its recipient by following a doubtful opinion.212 Any other priest can commute the penance only in virtue of a new absolution which he himself gives. The question now arises whether the penitent ought to repeat his confession with a view to obtain another penance. If he applies to the same confessor, he is certainly not obliged if the latter retain some notion in confuso of the penitent's conscience ; if the penitent goes to another priest, according to an opinion considered as probable by Laymann, Lugo, Sporer, he is ex empt from the obligation of repeating his confession, because it is not upon the sins that judgment is to be passed, but upon the reasons for changing the penance, whether, for instance, the penitent is unable to perform it or whether the penance itself is too severe. Moreover, the confessor may follow this method with a safe conscience, though it is more advisable for him to adopt the practice advocated by other theologians, notably Suarez, Lugo, Laymann, Sporer, and Lacroix, of get ting the penitent to give at least an outline of the previous con fession in order to have an approximate knowledge of the state of his soul.213 211 L. c. n. 529, dub. III. 212 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 366. 213 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 520, dub. I; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 213, Q. I; Miiller, 1. c. § 128. THE COMMUTATION OF THE PENANCE 277 The view held by many theologians is also probable, that when a confessor sees that a penance has not been performed by a penitent, and that no likelihood exists of its performance, he may commute it for something else, though unasked by the penitent. When, however, a penance has been inflicted for some reserved sin by a constitutional Superior, no inferior may commute it, for authority in such cases is withdrawn from the inferior tri bunal. Exception is made where the penitent would have great difficulty in approaching the Superior and when urgent reasons call for a commutation. This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus and some other theologians against the supporters of the stricter doctrine.214 There still remains the question what the penitent is to do when he has forgotten the penance. According to the common, and perhaps also the more probable, opinion, he is not obliged to repeat the confession of even the graver sins, and the duty of performing the penance simply lapses (ad impossibile enim nemo tenetur) ; nor is there any obligation to confess again sins already directly remitted with a view of securing the integrity of the Sacrament, for that would be a grievous burden. If, however, the penitent thinks that the confessor remembers the penance, and he can reach him without difficulty, he is, as theologians rightly affirm, obliged to ask his confessor to give him his pen ance, for there is no grave impediment in this case to the per formance of the penance.215 In this connection we must note that: 1. When a man for gets the penance enjoined, and has a conviction that the penance was a certain work, he is bound to do that work, for whoever is certain about his obligation is obliged to do what is probably of obligation if he cannot fulfill what is certainly of obligation.210 214 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 529, dub. II; H. A. n. 61. 215 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 520 ; H. A. n. 59. 216 H. A. Tr. 6, n. 33, in fine. 278 THE RECIPIENT OF PENANCE 2. When a penitent confesses that he has not performed the penance but has said the prayers prescribed out of devotion without thinking of the penance, he has satisfied his obligation, and the confessor cannot insist on the performance of another penance; for a man is supposed to do first that to which he is bound.217 si? S. Alph. II. A. n. 58 ; Theol. Mor. Lib. III. n. 700, Q. 2. PART III THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT IN the preceding chapters which dealt with the actus pceni- tentis, we have already had occasion to consider the office of the minister of the Sacrament. The functions of the confessor con sist mainly in absolving according to the intention of Christ. In treating of this important and difficult subject, we shall fol low the most approved theologians, distinguished alike for learning and sanctity, so as to avoid on the one hand an exten sive mildness and on the other a severity fatal to the salvation of souls. SECTION I THE POWERS OF THE CONFESSOR 36. Orders, Jurisdiction, Approbation. 1. The proper minister of the Sacrament of Penance is the priest. Penance being a Sacrament, it is self-evident on Catholic principles that its minister must have the sacerdotal character, the power of Orders (potestas ordinis). This power springs from the priestly character and consists in the capacity of valide per forming the sacred rites instituted by Christ, so that they are an efficacious means of grace.1 The Sacrament of Penance is, moreover, in its dispensation essentially judicial. The minister of the Sacrament is judge over the soul ; hence he must have in addition to Holy Orders the power of spiritual jurisdiction (potestas jurisdictionis) . 1 Lelimkuhl, 1. c. Sect. TTT. cp. T. art. T. n. 300. 280 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT Thus for a valid absolution there are required both potestas ordinis and potestas jurisdictionis. Jurisdiction in general is public authority in its completest sense, and thus includes the power of directing subjects. In its more restricted sense it is the power of judging right and wrong and of pronouncing sentence. It answers perfectly to the power exercised in the Sacrament of Penance (in foro interno). Hence jurisdiction in foro sacramentali is the power by which a priest can pronounce sentence on those subject to him by remitting or retaining sins. What, then, is the relation existing between the potestas ordinis and the potestas jurisdictionis ? The priestly character conveys no jurisdiction with it; it may exist without any jurisdiction.2 2. It is a peculiarity of this potestas ordinis that the exercise of it without the Church's commission is not illicit only, but invalid. Hence, while in the other Sacraments jurisdiction is extrinsic to the exercise of power and only regulates it, in the Sacrament of Penance the jurisdiction is an intrinsic condition, because the exercise of the power of this Sacrament is essentially a judicial act and involving jurisdiction. 3. Jurisdiction, though not conveyed by Orders, is derived from God, but through the hands of the Church, i.e. by delega tion from those who are invested with that jurisdiction. Hence all priests besides the Pope, who receives it immediately from God, owe their jurisdiction to the Church; thus priests receive their jurisdiction from the bishops, the bishops from the Pope. 4. We may, therefore, say that the potestas ordinis renders its subject capable of jurisdiction in foro interno, and of confer ring the Sacrament after jurisdiction has been given, so that the potestas ordinis is the disposition for administering the Sac rament of Penance.3 Thus it is not so much that the power of remitting sins judicially is given to the priest in his ordination ' frid. Sess. XIV. cp. 7. 8 Suarez, Disp. 16, s. 3. ORDERS, JURISDICTION, APPROBATION 281 as rather this, that the ordained person, when he is appointed judge by proper authority to take cognizance of sins, is enabled to remit these sins sacramentally ; in other words, he receives power to remit sins by a special grace. From the preceding it follows: (1) that the doctrine which teaches that jurisdiction is conveyed by ordination merely is false; (2) that it is also false to teach that ordination confers ipso facto jurisdiction, but that the Church can restrain its ex ercise and that in granting jurisdiction she does no more than remove her own prohibition ; (3) that it is the same thing to say : the Church confers jurisdiction to a priest, as to say, the Church assigns in foro interno certain subjects to the priest; (4) that one may say, the potestas ordinis which is acquired by the char acter of the priesthood is the potestas inchoata to absolve, while it is incorrect to say that the potestas ordinis is the potestas juris- dictionis inchoata or habitualis; (5) that jurisdiction differs from the powers of Orders both in its essence and in the mode by which it is acquired; in its essence, since jurisdiction is the power of judging and binding subjects, while ordination only confers the power ex jure divino of acquiring jurisdiction and is the necessary condition that the absolution be sacramental; in its mode, since jurisdiction is imparted by the concession of the Church, while the power of Orders comes from the con secration to the priesthood.4 Jurisdiction is either ordinary or delegated (ordinaria vel delegata). Christ appointed judges to preside over visible tri bunals in His place and in His name, with authority, vicarious, it is true, but ordinary (auctoritate quidem vicaria at ordinaria) , that is, an authority emanating from the office to which they were appointed by Christ. These judges are the Apostles and their successors, the Pope, therefore, and the bishops, and these can appoint others to help them. 4 Palmieri, Tract, de Pcenitentia, cp. II. Thes. XVI. p. 172 ss. 282 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT Thus whoever in virtue of a public, ecclesiastical office exist ing of divine right has subjects over whom he rules and is judge, exercises jurisdiction in the Sacrament of Penance potestate ordinaria; others exercise this function potestate delegata vel a proprie dictis Superioribus communicata ; hence the latter are dependent on their Superiors in the exercise of their powers quoad liceitatem et quoad valorem. Although any one with potestas ordinaria can impart it to another, the Supreme Authority of the Church on which de pends all valid exercise of jurisdiction has so ordered it that no one may exercise delegated jurisdiction in the tribunal of pen ance — at least with regard to lay people — without having previously received episcopal approbation; hence the delega tion by those who are subject to the bishop and have powers of delegation is as a rule quite useless. Indeed, it is now the custom generally to give approbation and jurisdiction at the same time; nevertheless, cases might occur in which the dis tinction must be observed. Approbation in se is nothing more than a formal declaration that a priest is a suitable person (aptus) to exercise sacramental jurisdiction; his fitness or capacity for the work is judged by his science and morals. Approbation cannot be given licitly unless the fitness of the subject is ascertained or reasonably presumed, though its validity is not affected by the want of this fitness; but the Superior ought to withdraw his approbation when the subject is unfit. The Council of Trent interprets the phrase Public Approbation not only as a testimonium auctori- tativum that the priest is a fit subject to exercise jurisdiction, but also as the facultas audiendi confessiones which the bishop grants to a priest who is considered fit for the office ; 5 for the Council declares that he only can hear confessions who has been given charge of a parish or who has received approbation. Be- * Trid. Sess. XXIII. cp. 15, reform. ORDERS, JURISDICTION, APPROBATION 283 yond that nothing else is demanded for the exercise of juris diction, hence approbation or the appointment to a parish is the only condition required for hearing confessions. Moreover, in papal constitutions the approbation is called licentia or facultas audiendi confessiones, and in common speech an approved priest is one who has jurisdiction.6 All this is in perfect agreement with the practice of bishops, who usually grant jurisdiction along with approbation.7 6 Ben. XIV. De Syii. Lib. 9, cp. 16, n. 7; Instit. n. 14 ss. et Instit. 86; S. Carol. Borrom. Cone. Provinc. I. part 2 et VI. part 3, etc. 7 Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. n. 546 ss. CHAPTER I JURISDICTION 37. The Minister of the Sacrament with Ordinary Jurisdiction. I. THE Pope has jurisdictio ordinaria over the whole Church. This requires no proof. The Vatican Council decreed that the jurisdiction of the Pope is a real episcopal jurisdiction, imme diate and extending to all the faithful. Theologians discuss at length — and it is a question not to be omitted here — how it is that the Pope can give power to another to absolve him self (the Pope). Lugo discusses at length that there is no con tradiction in the Pope delegating to another such jurisdiction over himself, and still less contradiction appears when we reflect that that jurisdiction in foro sacramentali, though exercised and delegated by the pastor of the Church, is always exercised in the name of Christ; nor is there anything absurd in the fact of the Pope as a private individual being subject to his own juris diction in his capacity as a public person. Though he cannot bind and punish himself, he may subject himself to another and share in the graces and privileges of the Church, otherwise he could not obtain absolution at all.8 II. By divine right, the bishops exercise potestas ordinaria in their own dioceses, even in foro interno, subject, of course, to the authority of the Pope. Although every bishop receives his jurisdiction from the Holy See, the episcopal office is one of divine right and confers a definite jurisdiction, a very important 8 Cf. Palmier!, 1. c. Thes. XVI; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sect. III. cp. I. art. II. n. 374. 284 ORDINARY JURISDICTION 285 section of which is the jurisdiction in foro sacramentali. As long as a bishop remains in office and in the exercise of it, he cannot be deprived of the power of absolving his subjects, though this power may be limited by reservations imposed by the Pope. A bishop may also, for grave reasons, be deprived of his office, or the exercise of it may be forbidden, or his jurisdiction taken away ; and such is the effect of certain ecclesiastical censures. III. By ecclesiastical law, all vicars-general, and sede vacante vicars-capitular, have the same jurisdiction as the bishop over his diocese in foro interno. The jurisdiction, however, of the vicar-general is wholly dependent on that of the bishop, hence the saying: Episcopi morte moritur Vicarius generalis; and he has no other faculties than those which the bishop has attached to his office. If, for instance, a bishop by a special privilege of the Holy See has more extended faculties, these do not pass to the vicar-general unless the bishop transfers them to him with leave from the Holy See. During the vacancy of the episcopal see, the whole of the bishop's faculties, with a few exceptions, are transferred to the vicar-capitular or administrator. IV. By the law of the Church, parish priests have jurisdictio ordinaria over their parishioners, and their power is measured by what the Church imparts to them as the constituted assist ants of the bishop. In relation to their own parish they are pastores proprii, having only administrative power in foro externo, but in foro interno plena jurisdictio subject, of course, to such limitations as may be imposed by the Pope or their bishop. By his appointment (collatione) to a parish a priest acquires the right of hearing the confessions of his subjects. Nevertheless, the bishop has the right of examining his clergy periodically to make sure of their fitness to hear confessions.9 9 Benedict XI V, Notificatione 0, n. 16 ; Scavini, 1. c. Tract. X. Disp. T. cp. 4, n. 96, nota 229. Cf. Deer. S. C. Concil. quoted by Scavini. The same author goes on to observe that by a decision of the Rota a causa sufficiens for a new examination may be libitum et sola quits eplscopi when there is 286 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT V. The Cathedral Penitentiary has also ordinaria jurisdictio for the whole diocese in places where the office is established, and he may absolve all belonging to the diocese, even outside the boundaries of the diocese ; 10 and this power is secured to him, not by any concession from the bishop, but by a law passed by the Council of Trent.11 VI. Others may, also, in virtue of the Church's law, acquire jurisdictio ordinaria, and as a matter of fact it is enjoyed by Pre- lati regulares with respect to their subjects, by Legates over their province. That of Cardinals over their churches is confined to very narrow limits. Those are regarded as subjects who have domicile or quasi-domicile within the parish or diocese; hence the jurisdiction of bishops and parish priests is primarily local and secondarily personal; that is, it extends to those who have their dwelling in a definite place. On the other hand, the juris diction of Regular Prelates is chiefly personal, and is confined to definite local limits only secondarily. Since the Council of Trent excepts from the further appro bation of the bishops only those priests who are in charge of a parish, a difficulty may occur as to the jurisdiction of priests who have no parish, but who exercise a definite cum spiritualis over certain subjects. We must inquire first of all into the faculties which the Holy See has annexed to such offices, for since the Council emanated from the Holy See the latter is em powered to make exceptions. The question is of peculiar inter est with regard to military chaplains, as to whether they can hear the confessions of soldiers in garrison without the appro- question of priests who have been examined by his predecessors; as for those whom he has himself examined, he is justified in calling them to account again quando adest vehemens suspicio de illorum imperitia, nor is it necessary that judicial proof of this imperitia be forthcoming. Deer. 15 Jan., 1667 et 22 Sept., 1668. Cf. Bened. XIV, De Synod, dioec. 1. 13, cp. 9, n. 21. 10 Scavini, 1. c. n. 98, nota 230 ; S. Alph. 1. c. nn. 555-558 ; H. A. n. 81. 11 Sess. XXIV. cp. 8 de reform. ORDINARY JURISDICTION 287 bation of the bishop of the diocese. No general rule can be laid down for all cases. Wherever a regularly appointed army-bishop or even a Capellanus major exists, he generally receives the fullest faculties, not only for hearing the confessions of the soldiers himself, but also for appointing other priests or chaplains to that duty without consulting the bishop of the diocese;12 other wise no military chaplain may hear the confessions of soldiers in garrison without special powers from the Pope or the per mission and approbation of the Ordinary.13 Thus their faculties are confined to the soldiers when on the march or in camp. All who have jurisdictio ordinaria can receive the confessions of their subjects and absolve them wherever they happen to be, for such jurisdiction belongs to their office and accompanies them everywhere. Thus a parish priest can always hear the confessions of his parishioners whether he be within or beyond the bounds of his parish and diocese or not. A curate, chaplain, or other assistant priest cannot receive confessions outside the diocese, even if he have faculties for the whole diocese ; to do so he would have to apply to the bishop of the diocese in which the penitent happens to be. De jure a parish priest is approved only for the territory of his benefice "pro suo tantum oppido ubi sita sit parochialis eccle- sia," according to the decrees of the S. C. C.14 He may not, therefore, when in another diocese, hear the confessions of strangers (who are not his own subjects) without leave of the bishop of that diocese. Indeed, per se, he may not hear the confessions of strangers in another parish even of his own diocese. At the present day, however, it is the practice sanctioned either by law or by custom that parish priests and their curates may hear confessions anywhere within the diocese.15 12 Scavini, 1. c. n. 231 ; Benedict XIV, Quoniam, 28 Maj., 1746. 13 A eta S. Sed. Vol. I. p. 081, liesp. 6 Mart., 1694, 29 Jan., 1707, in Frising. 14 Bouix, De Parocho, p. iv. cp. 14. 15 Gobat, 1. c. Tract. 7, n. 45 ; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. not. ad n. 552. 288 TIIE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT In his own parish a parish priest may hear the confessions of any one who approaches him, even strangers, since he is the approved confessor in his own parish. Jurisdictio ordinaria is lost : (a) by loss of the office or bene fice to which it is attached ; (b) by excommunication or suspension if the censure carries the stigma "vitandiis." Other excommu nications or suspensions impede only the licit exercise (licitus usus) of the powers. 38. The Minister of the Sacrament with Delegated Jurisdiction or Approbation. I. All priests who have not Jurisdictio ordinaria, but act only ex jurisdictions delegata, require for the licit and valid exercise of their office the approbation of the bishop of the place where they hear confessions, unless they enjoy some special privilege from the Holy See. The Constitution of Innocent XII, 9 Apr., 1700, aCum Sicut," is very explicit in this matter, as is also that of Innocent XIII, 23 Sept., 1723, "Apostolici muneris," which was confirmed by Benedict XIV in his Constitution, 5 Aug., 1744, "Apostolica indulta," in the following words: aNo priest, whether secular or regular, may hear confessions without the approbation of the Ordinary of the diocese where the penitent dwells or sojourns, and it is expressly decreed that all privileges to choose a confessor from the clergy approved by the bishop are to be understood only as giving powers to choose any one approved by the bishop of the place where the confession is made.7'16 16 After the Council of Trent, a lengthy controversy arose among the theologians as to which bishop ought to give the approbation to the con fessor ; many thought it was the confessor's bishop, others the penitent's ; with regard to exempted Regulars, it seemed probable that a single appro bation, without restrictions from any bishop at all, was sufficient, since they are not the subjects of the bishops ; this had been granted by Clement VII and Sixtus V; moreover, Gregory XITI gave Religious, when on a jour ney, the power of hearing confessions, provided they had the sanction of their Superior and approbation from any bishop; this privilege, how- DELEGATED JURISDICTION 289 Since the conferring of approbation is not an act of the Ordo episcopalis but of episcopal jurisdiction, all who have ordinary episcopal jurisdiction can grant approbation, thus : (1) the bishop elect and confirmed, though not yet ordained; (2) the vicar- general since he exercises the jurisdiction of the bishop; (3) the vicar-capitular sede vacante, since he succeeds to the jurisdiction of the bishop; (4) vicars-apostolic who are appointed by the Pope in place of bishops; and (5) abbots who are not affiliated to a diocese. The bishop may insist on an examination before granting approbation, though he may dispense with it since there are other means of ascertaining the fitness of a priest for hearing confessions.17 Any priest whether secular or regular may be called on again for examination by the bishop, if the latter has not approved the candidate himself, although a former bishop may have done so. A confessor even approved by his own Ordinary may be examined if he has received approbation with out undergoing examination. Those, however, whom the bishop has approved after an examination may not be reexamined without a justa causa.™ A bishop sins by refusing approba tion to a competent priest, for all priests have a claim to approbation in virtue of their sacerdotal character, so that to deny it to a suitable candidate would be an infringement of his rights. The approbation which is necessary for a valid absolution may not be presumed; it must be actually conferred and made known to the priest ; for since there is question of the validity of an act, only the faculties which the bishop has really conferred, not those which he will grant, can be considered. Hence when a priest applies for faculties he cannot hear confessions till he ever, was not to be made use of in the towns or places where the bishop was actually residing, without the latter's permission. Innocent XII, how ever, withdrew all privileges contrary to his bull. S. Alph. 1. c. n. 458. 17 Trid. 1. c. and the Constit. "Superna," Clem. X, etc. 1&S. Alph. I.e. n. 552; II. A. 75. 290 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT has received them, even when from his knowledge of the bishop he feels confident of receiving the faculties and knows that they are already on the way. The faculties may be acted upon when conveyed verbally by any trustworthy person.19 Approbation is required even before absolving from venial sins already confessed; after the decree of Innocent XI, 1.679, we cannot any longer assume that the Church here supplies jurisdiction to the priest.20 A bishop in traveling may take with him any of his priests to accompany him as confessor; but if the priest is not a sub ject of said bishop (whether by domicile or quasi-domicile), he may not receive the confession of the bishop unless he be ap proved, as St. Alphonsus adds, by the bishop of the priest's domicile (Fagnani and Lugo) or, as Scavini remarks, by the bishop of the place; the Congregation S. C. C. decreed so early as 1609 that a bishop outside his own diocese might confess only to a priest approved ab ordinario loci (except, of course, when the priest is a subject of the bishop), so that Scavini's decision is the norm to be observed in practice.21 Cardinals, papal domestic prelates, and royalty may choose any approved confessor and be absolved by him anywhere. Even in Rome itself Cardinals and bishops may choose for themselves and for their household any suitable priest as con fessor and retain him with them for that purpose also when they leave the city.22 19 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 570; H. A. n. 83. Lehmkuhl is of opinion that a priest who is convinced of the bishop's consent to his demand for approba tion, may give absolution validly, but not licitly, when the paper granting the faculties has been signed and sent off, so that it cannot be reclaimed or changed except by a message directed to the priest himself, or when the bishop has given the paper containing the approbation to the priest's mes senger, who has not yet delivered it, Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 380, nota. 20 S. Alph. 1. c. tin. 543, 582; H. A. 76, 132. 21 Confirmed by Greg. XIII, 1 Dec., 1582. 22 Cf. S. Alph. and the other authors quoted above. Ballerini, Op.. Theol. Mor. 1. c., Quid sit approbatio et a quo petenda, n. 540 ss. DELEGATED JURISDICTION 291 A bishop can give faculties for hearing confessions in his own diocese to a priest belonging to another diocese, for the latter in ordine ad hoc opus is subject to the bishop of the diocese where the confessions are heard. This is the universal practice in the Church. A parish priest cannot of his own authority give faculties to a priest of another diocese to hear the confessions of his own parishioners because the jurisdictio ordinaria which goes along with the benefice extends only to the parish in his own charge. There is a custom, however, in many places among parish priests in outlying districts of the diocese to authorize the priest of a neighboring diocese to assist them in hearing confessions. This custom, which is recognized by the bishops, confers jurisdiction ex tacita episcoporum approbations. 23 Thus many bishops have an explicit agreement by which approved priests of neighboring dioceses may assist one another in the confessional. Those who supply in another diocese, however, must pay attention to the cases reserved to the bishop in that diocese, since for the time being they are subject to him in ordine ad hoc munus. II. Approbation may be granted without any limitations; the bishop may, if he wish, limit the approbation according to time, place, and persons, most certainly if the approbation include jurisdiction, for the whole subject is one of delegation and all delegation is regulated by the intention of the Superior. Even when approbation in the strict sense only is conferred the bishop may ex rationabili causa confine it within a given time, a fixed place, or over a certain class of persons (children, men). The grounds for such a limitation might be, for instance, defects of ability, care, or study. III. The bishop may not only impose limits in his approba tion, but he may also recall it entirely, for all delegated author ity exists only at the pleasure of the Superior; reasonable 23 Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. n. 544; II. A. n. 77. 292 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT grounds must exist for such withdrawal if it is to be licit. It is a debated point among theologians whether withdrawal without any grounds is valid or not. The view that such withdrawal is invalid because it is an unjust deprivation of rights conferred, is certainly probable and maintained, among others, by Suarez, Lugo, and St. Alphonsus; but since it is not easy to establish the want of just grounds the view is of but little practical appli cation; the bishop may be acting upon reasons which are un known to his clergy, and while doubts remain, the presumption is always in favor of the bishop.24 IV. When the approbation is granted for a fixed length of time it ceases after that period; otherwise only by withdrawal; when given without any limitations it does not cease with the death of the giver, nor even when the recipient changes his domicile. This may be considered quite certain with regard to Regulars who have once received unlimited approbation.25 Regulars, on account of their privileges and dependence on the Holy See, are distinguished in many details from the secular priesthood with regard to jurisdiction. V. The secular clergy receive jurisdiction and approbation either from their own bishop or from the bishop in whose dio cese they are hearing confessions. Regulars receive jurisdic tion from the Sovereign Pontiff through their Superiors, who must confer the jurisdiction as from the Pope, not like the bish ops granting it on their own authority, but only as representa- 24 S. Alph. n. 551 ; H. A. n. 75. 25 Whenever both jurisdiction and approbation are granted on account of the office which the priest exercises as a subject of the bishop, they lapse on the office being surrendered. Hence a secular priest who has had fac ulties to hear confessions in some diocese in virtue of a chaplaincy or other appointment, is deprived of these faculties on being changed to another diocese unless the bishop is distinctly understood to wish to continue them. The same holds true for a Religious who has received faculties from his local Superior ; his faculties lapse when he is removed to another diocese and do not revive merely by his return to the scene of his former labors. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 381, nota 1. DELEGATED JURISDICTION 293 tives of the Apostolic See. Besides this jurisdiction they must also have the approbation of the Episcopus loci; then as far as jurisdiction is considered they may absolve any one.26 Though all Regulars have jurisdiction from the Pope they cannot hear confessions without the approbation of the bishop, which may not be refused without just and reasonable motives; of these, however, the Regular is not the judge, and if he be refused approbation, he is effectually debarred from hearing con fessions.27 Clement X imposed certain limitations on bishops with regard to the granting or refusing of approbation to the Regular clergy. He decreed:28 — 1. That Religious who were proved capable of hearing con fessions, should be permitted by the bishop to hear confes sions anywhere in the diocese without restriction of time, place, or person; with regard, however, to those who were not so well prepared the bishop should be left to his own judg ment in the matter of imposing restrictions. 2. Those who had once received approbation might hear the confessions of any of the faithful, even of the sick, without leave of the parish priest or even of the bishop, at any time of the year, including even Easter, within the diocese of the bishop 26 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. Sect. I. art. ITT. n. 379. Gury, II De Sacram. Poenit. P. TIL cp. I. art. II. Append, n. 557. Scavini, Tract. III. Disp. I. cp. 3, art. 3, 519. Aertnys on Approbation says : in sensu quo Concilium Tridentinum usurpat, approbatio dicenda videtur facultas audiendi confessiones ab Episcopo fncta Sacerdoti qui idoneus judicatus est — and he supposes that Regulars do not, as many maintain, receive jurisdiction from the Pope. He appeals to the S. C. Ep. et Reg. 2 Mar., 1806, also Extrao. comm. cp. 2 de sepult ex clement., cp. 2 de sepult. and Extrao. comm. cap. 1111. de judic., where the Pope gives juris diction to a Regular only when it has been refused by the bishop, whence it would seem that jurisdiction proceeds from the bishop except in the cases where he refuses to give it. Still it remains to De proved that Regulars do not receive jurisdiction from the Pope through their Superiors and approba tion from the bishop. Cf. Gury, Edit. Ratisb. V. in Germania, Nota Editoris ad n. 557. 27 Cf. Thesis 13 abAlexand. VII. prescript. -8 Const. Superua. 294 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT who conferred the approbation; in cases where they had heard the confessions of the sick they should inform the parish priest, at least by a letter left with the sick person; the penalty for neglect in this matter being suspension from the right of hearing confessions. (The latter obligation is not enforced in missionary countries, where by general consent any approved priest maj hear the confessions of the sick.) 3. Any Regular who has been approved by the bishop after examination and without any restriction cannot be called again for examination by his bishop (this does not hold when the fac ulties have been obtained from the vicar-general or the prede cessor of the bishop), nor can he be suspended from hearing confessions; moreover he cannot even be deprived of his facul ties unless for reasons connected with the Sacrament itself; the reasons for such objection need not be judicially proved, nor is the bishop obliged to communicate them himself to the Regular in question, but he must reveal them to the Pope if the latter insists on being informed of them. Hence in the whole process the Regular must act in submission to the bishop, and if he be convinced that he is treated unjustly, he may have recourse to the Holy See ; in the meantime, however, his attitude must be one of submission. 4. Though a blameless life and unspotted morals are of the greatest moment in the ministers of this Sacrament ... no bishop can deprive a whole community of faculties on the ground of general unfitness, without consulting the Holy See. Hence we conclude : — 1. Approbation is justly limited in the case of Religious who have not passed an examination. 2. Approved Regulars may be recalled for examination: (a) when they have received approbation without examination , (6) when after examination they have received only limited approbation; (c) when this approbation has been received from the vicar-general or the bishop's predecessor, and this DELEGATED JURISDICTION 295 though the examination has been passed and unlimited approba tion conferred; (d) when any reason is presented connected with the Sacrament itself; and this holds for those who after examination even have received the fullest approbation from the bishop himself.29 Except in the case of special legislation to the contrary on the part of the Holy See any Religious may receive both juris diction and approbation ab Episcopo loci, and at the present day that is the way in which bishops understand the conferring of approbation. This view solves the question of the validity of absolution given by a Religious without the knowledge or even against the will of his Superior.30 Moreover, Religious Superiors may receive from the bishop the power of imparting faculties to their subjects; the extent of the faculties must, of course, be ascertained. When, -for example, the bishop gives general faculties, reserved cases are not included even when they are not expressly excepted.31 When the bishop gives more extended faculties, as, for instance, on the occasion of a mission, and a Religious Superior imparts to his subjects these faculties for the mission, he is supposed to give all the faculties which he has received from the bishop, because he is then acting only as the bishop's mouthpiece unless, of course, he states the contrary. When, again, the bishop gives faculties for a special object they are not to be used for anything beyond that object; it is another question when some special work is seized upon only as an occasion for asking and giving faculties.32 29 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 382; cf. Gury, 1. c. ; cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. n. 583 ss. 80 The case is solved by Aertnys, who quotes a decree S. C. Ep. et Reg. 2 Mar., 1866 (Acta S. Sedis, vol. I. p. 683) : " An religiosus non approbatus juxta leges proprii Ordinis a suo Superiore vel ipso inrito cum sola facultate ordinarii valide excipiat confessiones scecularium." R. " Affirmative." It is needless to say, of course, that such conduct is illicit. 81 In accordance with the Rule of Boniface VIII, 1. 5, tit. 10, cp. 2 in 6°. 32 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 383. 296 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT VI. Strangers (peregrini), i.e. those who are not in the dio cese of their domicile or quasi-domicile, may be absolved by a Religious without any difficulty as subjects of the Pope (from whom the Religious presumably receives jurisdictio delegata) ; they may also in virtue of an old and approved custom in the Church be absolved by any other confessor. This is the unanimous verdict of all theologians, though there is diversity of opinion as to the theory which justifies the practice of secular priests in this matter, nor is the manner of solving the question an indifferent matter; if, for instance, a stranger is absolved in virtue of the jurisdiction which his own bishop confers on the priest, the bishop can absolutely forbid him to seek absolution from a strange priest by declaring such absolution invalid ; (this, of course, applies to secular priests; with regard to Religious confessors there is no difficulty).33 Thus on the solution of this question depends the power over cases reserved in another dio cese. Some theologians now maintain that the jurisdiction of a priest over a stranger is based on the tacit consent 34 of all the bishops, while others hold that it is a universal custom of the Church having the force of law.35 But neither the consensus Episcoporum, nor consuetudo, even when the latter has the force of law, can convey jurisdiction if we are to follow the teaching of the Church; we must suppose, then, that the propounders of such a view meant to state it thus : the Church, i.e. the Pope, either makes the Episcopus loci an Episcopus peregrinorum, or he delegates his own jurisdiction to all confessors. Since the first view is hardly possible, they are forced to the conclusion that the Pope, either- by express or legal consent to the universal custom, grants to all approved confessors a delegated jurisdic- 88 Cf. Gury, 1. c. n. 555, Q. 13, Edit. Roman. Whether a bishop can forbid his diocesans to make their confessions outside his diocese under pain of invalidity. 84 Gury, cf. 1. c. Edit. Ratisb. ad nn. 554, 555, also Nota Edit. 86 Cf . S. Alph. 1. c. n. 569 : spectato consensu Episcoporum et consuetudine. DELEGATED JURISDICTION 297 tion to absolve strangers. It is beyond all doubt that this view is probable especially when we add the weight of St. Alphonsus' authority. The case, however, is not quite certain, for the exist ence of the custom seems to prove no more than that the bishops themselves as a rule give a tacit consent to the arrangement, and it does not prove that the bishops are obliged to agree in every case to this arrangement, or that their power over a subject is withdrawn by the fact of his occasionally leaving the diocese; and it still remains to be proved that the Pope so entirely approves of the practice as to consent to break through the natural order of things by which all authority is communicated through immediate Superiors, not directly from the fountain- head; at the same time it is beyond all question that the Pope can if he so wishes empower any secular priest to hear the con fessions of peregrini; and if a bishop were without any pressing reason to forbid his subjects to confess outside their own diocese, the Holy See could always be petitioned to apply a suitable remedy for such a prohibition, since under the present condition of things there must always be many people living outside of their own diocese.36 Other theologians teach that peregrini by the very fact of presenting themselves at the tribunal of penance in another diocese become subjects of the Episcopus loci or of the priest who derives his faculties from him, and this ex universali con- sensu quern P. M. Eugenius IV approbavit.37 But does the wish to receive the Sacrament make the peregrinus a subject of the bishop or the bishop his superior? Whoever maintains this and grants that the Episcopus loci is not the bishop of the pere grinus, states in other words that one who is not actually a superior may be judge in foro interno. But is such a statement 36 Zeitschrift fiir kathol. Theol., Innsbruck, 1881 ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 385. 87 See Miiller, 1. c. § 135, n. 5. Miiller also appeals to St. Alphonsus; Lugo, Disp. 20, Sect. 5, nn. 70, 72 ; Suarez, De Prenit. Disp. 30, Sect. 1, n 4 ; and many others. 298 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT in accordance with divine right? In any case the peregrinus remains the subject of the bishop of the diocese in which he has domicile or quasi-domicile, and no proof can be adduced that the bishop of the place in which the peregrinus makes his con fession has, by virtue of his office, power to absolve him ; he can do that only when he is superior in right of his office, and he can be superior only when he is the bishop of the peregrinus, since human and divine law recognize no other ecclesiastical supe rior than Pope, bishop, parish priest, or their substitutes. But no one would maintain that the Episcopus loci is the true bishop of the peregrinus. Finally, other theologians explain the jurisdiction of the sec ular priest over peregrini in this manner : that the bishop of the peregrinus grants tacitly the faculties to every approved priest and is generally obliged to do so.38 The ecumenical synods of Flor ence, Trent, and the Lateran declare that the absolution granted by any other than one's own Ordinary is invalid unless leave be obtained from him. Now such a permission is either a direct or indirect imparting of jurisdiction; hence every absolution is in valid which is given without jurisdiction from the bishop of the penitent. It is on this ground that theologians and canonists alike, whether of the older or more recent school, insist upon the necessity of a consent on the part of the Superior or bishop of the penitent in the case of confessions made outside his own diocese. Ballerini (1. c. Dissert, n. 33 ss) concludes his learned investigation of this question in answer to the objections of the Vindicice Alphonsiance with the following propositions, which are not mere speculative conclusions, but are in fact the teach ing of the Church, resting as they do on the very essence and nature of the Sacrament as solemnly explained and denned by the Holy See and ecumenical councils: (1) in order to absolve 38 Cf. Ballerini, Notse ad Gury, 1. c. ad n. 555, Q, 14 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol Mor. vol. V. 1. c. c]>. IT. 1111. 618-027, A itpemlix-nissertdtio : I)e absolutions peregrin oru in, pp. 769-855, and Lehmkuhl, 1. c. im. 379 et 384. DELEGATED JURISDICTION 299 A peregrinus, faculties must be granted by one who has ordinary jurisdiction over the penitent; (2) the existence of the custom of absolving peregrini outside their diocese neither conveys nor can convey the necessary jurisdiction; (3) jurisdiction is given by approbation or consent (express or tacit) or leave (implicit or explicit) of the Ordinary or of the particular pastor of the peregrinus; (4) this approbation or consent includes the im parting of jurisdiction to the confessor chosen by the peregrinus; (5) a sufficient indication of this consent exists in the tolerance of a custom with the knowledge of the bishop and without any remonstrance on his part; (6) the delegation of jurisdiction depends on this consent in such wise that the pastor of souls may, at his own option, retract his consent, thus abolishing the custom and withdrawing entirely the power to absolve his sub jects. All these statements are incontrovertible. Hence since a penitent can be absolved by his own bishop or by the delegate of the latter, since the bishop of the peregrinus remains his superior in spite of the penitent being in another diocese transitorily, the latter can be absolved only in virtue of power granted tacitly by his own bishop.39 VII. As Vagi have no fixed domicile, their spiritual superior is the Pope, and by virtue of his express or tacit delegation they may be absolved by any approved confessor wherever they hap pen to be; but they cannot be absolved by any but those approved for the place where the confession is made. It will be asked: Who is to give approbation for absolving travelers on the sea? This point has been settled in a very simple manner by a recent decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition. Any priest, approved by his Ordinary, may hear the confession of his fellow-travelers while the voyage is in pro cess, though they pass through or stop off for a time in the terri tory of another bishop.' 40 39 Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. 1. c. cp. TT. De jurisdict. Conf. mi. 613-027. 40 Deer. 4 Apr., 1900. 3(B THE MINISTER OF THE SACKAMENT 39. Jurisdictio Delegata Extraordinaria, or, the Supplying of Deficient Jurisdiction by the Church. There is another kind of jurisdiction, viz. : when the Church makes good the deficiency of delegation; here jurisdiction is conveyed "supplente Ecclesia." Let it be remarked at the outset that it is by no means per missible to perform any act for which jurisdiction is necessary - therefore to give absolution — when the absence of jurisdic tion is certain, even if the Church should supply to insure validity of the act. When jurisdiction is doubtful, it may be allowable to perform the act, especially if the Church really does supply. Before discussing the matter itself we must explain what is meant by the axiom : "The Church makes good deficient jurisdiction." The meaning of it is this: the Church, or the highest judicial authority of the Church, confers, in an exceptional manner, jurisdiction for individual acts, and the Church does this for the general welfare in ipso actu, that is, in the perform ance of the act itself.41 There is, accordingly, a great difference between the jurisdiction which a man actually possesses, and that which he exercises "supplente Ecclesia." In the first case I possess the jurisdiction before I begin the act, before I hear the confession, or perform any other act for which jurisdiction is required ; indeed, I possess it in most cases habitualiter. I pos sess it also when the act is completed. But he who absolves or performs any other function supplente Ecclesia receives the jurisdiction only when the action has already begun — in this case when he is about to pronounce absolution — in order that he may carry to its end the confession which has begun; the action once completed, — in this case the absolution being pro nounced, — he has no further jurisdiction. When, therefore, previous to an action, a priest already probabiliter possesses jurisdiction, the Church, if she supplies, must do so only condi- 41 Lessius, De justitiu et jure, 1. 2, cp. 29, im. 65 and 68. JURISDICT1O DELEGATA EXTRAOIWINARIA 301 tionally, upon the presumption that he possessed no jurisdic tion; that is, when that jurisdiction which he was believed to have was as a matter of fact not existing. The Church supplies deficiency of jurisdiction : - 1. When one who exercises a power possesses a titulus colora- tus for this power, and when, at the same time, the error is gen eral amongst the faithful, in such sort that the absence of real power is mostly unknown. A titulus coloratus (apparent title) is one that is in itself false, but yet really exists; that is, one which has been conferred by lawful authority and, therefore, bears the appearance and outward form of a true title, even when, for some cause or other, it is void by an essential de fect.42 The supplying action of the Church in this case is based upon the right itself which she has conferred and ratified; this is the teaching of all theologians.43 The Church, they say, sup plies as a good mother in the interest of the welfare of souls.44 2. When there is no titulus coloratus but only error communis,45 many theologians are of opinion that the Church supplies in this case also for the general welfare. St. Alphonsus adopts this opinion as probable, because the Church supplies for defective jurisdiction more with a view to the common good than out of consideration for the title.46 It will scarcely, however, be possible to assign to this opinion a real and substantial probability; a number of theologians are in deed in favor of it, but not a few of considerable repute are opposed to it (Lugo, Sanchez, Lessius, and others). It is, 42 A priest, for example, who has obtained a parish by simony, has, accord ing to canon law, an invalid title. But if he was appointed to the parish by a lawful bishop, he has an " apparent title." 43 Cap. " infamis," caus. 3, Q. 7 (c. 1). 44 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 572. 45 In forming a judgment as to whether error communis or error paucorum is in question, we must not consider if many or few seek administration of the Sacrament of Penance from one possessing no lawful power, but if many or few have been aware of the absence of power. 46 S. Alph. n. 572. 302 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT therefore, canon law which must decide the question, the more so, as we have not to do directly with what may be allowed or not, but with the positive conferring of, possibly, non-existent jurisdiction. Now what is to be gathered from the canon law on this point seems plainly opposed to the more lenient view given in a decision of the S. C. Cone, of 11 December, 1683, which Benedict XIV 47 cites to settle the question. The mat ter remains, therefore, doubtful. The harm, however, which can result from the negative opinion is not very great, as a confessor cannot long exercise his office without title, and such harm is made good by subsequent communion or confession. Several theologians, moreover, rightly maintain that the faithful are not bound in this case to repeat those confessions which they have, bona fide, made to a priest, who, ex communi errore, passed for a confessor. 3. But when there is question not of error communis but only of error privatus in a few persons, the Church certainly does not supply the defective jurisdiction, because here the bonum com mune is not at stake.48 From this it follows : — 1. That it is not allowed knowingly to make use of a power arising only from an " apparent" title, although the Church should positively supply ; but he who is not aware of the defect of his title — this title being in reality only an apparent title — has nothing to rectify subsequently, as his actions were valid (supplente Ecclesia). 2. Still less is it allowable for one who knows that he pos sesses neither power nor title to act on the ground of general error; in the first place, because he assumes a power which he does not possess, and because, moreover, he exposes to danger those who are most interested in the validity of his actions. 47 Instit. 84, n. 22. 48 S. Alph. 1. c. ; Gury, Ed, Ratisb. V. ad n. 548, Q. II; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 226. Q. Ill; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. nn. 636-639. JURISDICTIO DELEGATA EXTRAORDINAEIA 303 Connected with the above is the question: does 'jurisdidio probabilis or dubia suffice for the valid and lawful administra tion of absolution. The question turns only on probabilitas juris, a solidly probable, though not necessarily certain, interpre tation of the law declaring that jurisdiction is possessed. This may occur with regard to the questions : whether the jurisdic tion possessed extends to this or that case, to this or that person ? or, whether the jurisdiction once possessed has been revoked? But a jurisdiction is doubtful when the uncertainty of it rests upon a doubt or a probable fact. Upon this distinction between probable and doubtful jurisdiction we must insist. St. Alphonsus 49 does so, and that chiefly in order to show that, in the case of a dubium facti, — thus, doubtful jurisdiction, - the faculty for the exercise and the validity $f the act (here of absolution) always remains doubtful, whereas, in the case of pro babilitas juris, the validity of the action after it has been per formed is morally certain. When such probable jurisdiction (probabilitas juris) is in question, it is, as St. Alphonsus teaches, morally certain that the Church confers jurisdiction, if it has previously (antecedenter) been wanting. The saint calls this teaching communissima, and demonstrates it by the fact that the Church, in the person of her chief pastor, tacitly tolerates the old custom of absolving with such jurisdiction, and thus sufficiently expresses her consent. With regard to the jurisdidio dubia, however, the contentions of many authors are not of this nature.50 If many are of opinion that the Church supplies in this case also, and base their opinion upon the fact that the Church supplies when there is only error communis and not titulus coloratus, we need but refer to what has been previously said upon this head.51 49 Lib. VI. rm. 571, 573. so S. Alph. Lib. VF. 11. 432 ; Lacroix, 1. c. L. VI. P. I. n. 110 ss. ; Lessius, 1. c. L. II. cp. 28, nn. 67 et 08; lleuter, Theol. Mor. P. TV. n. 53. 51 Cf. 8. Alph. 1. c. n. 572; Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. n. 548, Edit. Ratisb. 1. c.: Balleriui, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. 11. De Jurisdict. nn. C28-(J3(J. 304 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT According to this it is morally certain that the Church, in the case of previous juris probabilitas, supplies jurisdiction. But if the jurisdiction is doubtful on account of a dubium facti, the Church does not supply if the error exists only with a few ; as the error is usually general, it remains doubtful whether the Church supplies. It is not always wrong to use doubtful juris diction in administering the Sacrament of Penance, particularly when the reason for it is pressing, when absolution is urgently necessary, and when it would be better to absolve with doubtful validity than not to absolve at all. But in this case it would always be necessary to instruct the penitent as to the value of the absolution administered. According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus, absolution may be administered with a doubtful jurisdiction in the following cases: (1) When the obligation of yearly confession must be fulfilled exactly at that time; (2) when the penitent must say Mass or communicate, and this cannot be omitted without bringing upon himself disgrace; (3) when the priest must say Mass in fulfilment of his duty. In these cases a priest possessing only doubtful jurisdiction may absolve conditionally when no other confessor is at hand.52 But the saintly Doctor 53 remarks that, in this case, the confessor would be bound to inform the penitent who had accused himself of mortal sin that he had been only conditionally absolved, so that if afterwards it should become manifest that the confessor really possessed no jurisdiction, the penitent might fulfill his duty of confessing his sins again.54 52 Lehmkuhl adds the following case : when a priest has, bonajide, begun to hear a confession, and a doubt has arisen in his mind as to whether the period of his approbation has expired, there being no possibility of satis fying himself upon the point, this confession, begun and considerably advanced, may be concluded if great inconvenience would otherwise result to confessor and penitent; the confessor must, however, inform the peni tent that the absolution administered was of doubtful validity; but if he could, without great inconvenience to either party, break off the confession, he must do so. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 390, nota 1. 53 L. c. n. 432. 54 Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. nn. 390 and 391. JURISDICTIO DELEGATA EXTRAORDINAEIA 305 In order to absolve with probable jurisdiction, a legitimate reason is necessary and this exists: (1) When the penitent stands in special need of the help of this particular priest; (2) when the accomplice of the penitent is known to the confessor who possesses certain jurisdiction, but unknown to him who possesses only probable jurisdiction; (3) if the penitent were under an urgent obligation of confessing, if a particular indulgence were to be gained, if the penitent would not be able to confess for a long time, and a priest with certain jurisdiction were not at hand.55 A special case in which the Church supplies deficient juris diction is in articulo mortis. The necessary jurisdiction for the absolution of dying persons is conferred by the Church upon any priest, when no approved confessor is at hand, so that any priest may absolve dying per sons from all sins.56 55 S. Alph. Lib. VI. mi. 573, 600 ; H. A. n. 91, with Suarez, Gobat, Elbel, Spore r, etc. 56 Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. c. 7, where reserved cases are spoken of, and the following is decreed: "That no one may perish, it has always been the usage of the Church that there should be no reservation at the hour of death, and, therefore, that all priests may absolve any penitent from any sins and censures whatever." These words of the Council are variously interpreted, some believing that all priests, without exception, receive juris diction from the Church, others believing that it is necessary to affix a limi tation : when no other approved priest is at hand to whom the dying person could easily and without danger confess; these latter, therefore, limit the words " omnes sacerdote.s " on account of the intention expressed in the pre ceding words : " ne quis pereat" and the other ones : " ut nulla sit reservatio" maintaining that these words indicate that there is question of priests who otherwise possessed jurisdiction, namely, "when no otherwise approved priest is at hand." According to the first interpretation, and the opinion based upon it, a sacerdos simplex (therefore nan approbatus) could valide administer absolution to a dying person in presence of approved priests. A great number of theologians defend this opinion (Ballerini mentions twenty-five in his notes to Gury, 1. c. ad n. 551, Q. 8, and in his Opus. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. IT. De jurisdict. Conf. n. 581), and St. Alphonsus does hot venture to reject it, though, in spite of the reasons advanced by these authorities, he maintains that a simplex sacerdos can only absolve a dying 306 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT An approved priest is considered not to be present, not only when he is bodily but also morally out of reach; that is, in the following cases: (1) When the approved priest who is present does not wish to hear the confession of the dying person or cannot hear it, for in such a case he would be practically absent ; (2) when he is excommunicated or sus pended;57 (3) if an approved priest should arrive when the confession to the unapproved priest has already begun ; (4) if an approved priest were complex of the dying person in peccato turpi;™ (5) if this priest is so displeasing to the sick person that the latter would be in danger of sacrilegious confession; there would then be danger of the soul of the sick person being lost, a risk which it was the intention of the Council of Trent to obviate.59 What has been said above concerning the administration of absolution in articulo mortis stands good also for its administra- person when no other approved priest is at hand, and he is supported in this opinion by the authority of the Roman Ritual, which (De Sacram. Pcenit. sub init.) teaches that : when danger of death threatens, and an approved priest is not present, any priest can absolve from all sins and censures. This opinion of St. Alphonsus is the most general, though, according to Ballerini and Lehrnkuhl, probability is not to be denied to the other opinion, in view of the authority of so many theologians, and in accordance with the rules of interpretation. 67 Such a priest may vnlide absolve a dying person if no other priest be present, for the Tridentine says : quilibet sacerdos may absolve in articulo mortis. Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. n. 560 circa fin.; Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. n. 550. But it is not difficult to see why deficiente alio sacerdote is added here ; for the communicatio in sacris with heretics and with excommunicated persons who are to be avoided (excommunicati vitandi) is a grave sin, unless when excused by necessity; a penitent, therefore, would himself commit a grave sin if he should solicit absolution from a heretical priest, or one to be avoided (a vitandus), unless no other priest should be at hand. To ask the Sacra ment of Penance from such an unhappy priest, and to receive it, even when it is allowed, appears, however, to be in any case a dangerous proceeding; evil influence at the most important moment of human life, and also scan dal to others, are to be feared. 58 See § 46. 59 S. Alph. 1. c. mi. 562, 563. THE CONFESSIONS OF RELIGIOUS 307 tion in quolibet gram periculo mortis.™ For the two situations are generally considered as identical ; moreover, the Ritual says : "When danger of death threatens;" besides there is a divine precept to confess when there is danger of death also, and thus there arises a case of necessity. A grave periculum mortis is considered to exist : (1) In a dan gerous illness; (2) in times of plague; (3) at a difficult birth; (4) before a very difficult surgical operation; (5) in battle, or shortly before it ; (6) before a very dangerous sea voyage, etc.61 40. The Administration of the Sacrament of Penance to Members of Religious Orders. Hitherto we have treated of the powers necessary to the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance — secular and regular priests — in order that they may validly and lawfully hear the confessions of lay people (seculares). It remains now to discuss the regulations laid down by the Church concerning the jurisdiction over men and women belonging to Religious Orders emitting vota solemnia. I. The Superiors of Religious Orders, or the local Superiors, although they possess full jurisdiction over their subjects in foro interno, are bound to appoint others as confessors, so that the subjects may not be obliged to confess to their own Superiors; it is only in certain definite cases that a subject is bound to go to confession to his Superior. The inmates of a religious house may indeed confess to their Superiors, and the latter must hear their confessions; but this must be left to the option of the subordinates. One or more confessors may, however, be nomi nated in the individual houses, so that no religious can validly confess to any other but these; unless a confessor has received 60 There is periculum mortis when the illness is such as may, according to the judgment of the physicians, and experience, result in death, sive id abso lute, idest genemtim pro omnibus verificetur, sive respective propter circwnstantias hujus infirmi. Ballerini, 1. c. G1 S. Alph. 1. c. u. 561. 308 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT special powers for this purpose from the Holy See or from the Roman Penitentiary.62 Only when a Jubilee occurs and usually once may Regulars choose as confessor a priest out of those approved by the Ordinarius, in order to gain the Jubilee indul gence. Several confessors are generally nominated so that the subjects may have a choice from among them.63 II. Confessors for Regulars receive their jurisdiction from the Superiors of the latter. Not only priests belonging to Reli gious Orders, but also secular priests (even those who have not been approved by their bishops), may be empowered by Supe riors to act as confessors to their subjects, unless this be for bidden by the constitutions of the Order.64 This faculty belongs to Superiors of Religious Orders by com mon law, since, by virtue of their exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, they possess quasi-episcopalem jurisdictionem over their subordinates. The Council of Trent has altered nothing in this matter, as it speaks only of the jurisdiction or approba tion necessary for the confessions of lay people; moreover, Clement VIII has expressly granted this faculty to Superiors of Orders. The confessor of Regulars can absolve those for whom he is appointed confessor, even outside the monastery, as this jurisdiction is not limited to a definite place, and no further approbation of the bishop is necessary. Regulars who are on a journey or staying outside their monastery must confess to a member of their Order who is near them, even when the latter is not otherwise appointed for confessions; if, however, they have no opportunity of confessing to one of their Order, they may do so to any other regular or secular priest. This priest (according to the sententia communissima, which St. Alphonsus considers the more probable) need not even be approved by the Episcopus 62 Const. Clem. VIII, Rom. Pontif. 1599. 68 Decret. Clem. VIII, Sanctissimus. 64 Cf. Mazzotta, 1. c. de Pcenit. Disp. 2, Q. 1, cp. 3, § 2. THE CONFESSIONS OF RELIGIOUS 309 loci*5 as it is presumed that the Order, or its Superior, confers in such a case delegated jurisdiction upon any priest whom the religious has chosen for his confessor.66 III. Those who can be validly absolved only by a priest authorized by a Superior of an Order are : not only the religious and their novices, but also lay persons, who, as really belonging to the monastic community, live in the monastery or college; servants, for example, and others who regularly live and take their meals in the monastery.67 IV. As regards the question whether priests of an Order, by virtue of the authorization of the Superiors of their Order, may 65 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 575; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 232, II. Q. ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 395, ad II. 2 ; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 640. 66 This freedom, as Lehmkuhl remarks, exists for the members of the Society of Jesus, so that they are not obliged, when on a journey, to seek a priest of their own Order. Certain theologians, however, are unwilling to concede this to all Orders. Benedict XIV, in the Brief " Quod comniuni," 30 March, 1742, allowed the Capuchins to confess to others not of their Order, attaching the conditions, however, that the priest to whom they confessed must be approved ; the same condition wras laid down for mem bers of the Augustinian Order on June 3, 1863 (Acta S. Sedis, vol. 1, p. 677), and the S. Pcenitent., 18 April, 1867, the S. C. Ep. et Regul., 3 July, 1862 and 27 Aug., 1852 (see Bucceroni, Enchirid. pp. 127 et 128), demand the same condition for the dispersed Regulars. From which it is to be con cluded that the Sacerdotes idonei, of whom the privileges of Sixt. IV and In- noc. VIII speak, must be approved priests. Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. This seems also to hold for the congregations under vota shnplicia, who possess the privi lege of exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, as this regulation is based not upon the solemnity of the vows, but upon the said exemption. 67 This follows from the Bull Clem. X, Superna, 21 July, 1670, already mentioned, partly printed in Gury, Ed. Ratisb. II. ad n. 559. According to the Council of Trent, all those lay persons are free from episcopal jurisdic tion who belong to the household of (real and exempted) Religious Orders. But in order that the servants of a monastery may enjoy this privilege, the following conditions must concur : (1) they must really serve the religious of the monastery; (2) they must live within the inclosure at the expense of the monastery; (3) they must be under obedience to the religious of the Order; this obedience need not be the obedience of the religious; it must, however, be such as servants owe to their masters. Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. II. de ref. ; Barbosa, de Parocho cum animadvers. ; Giraldi, p. 2, cp. 20, n. 12; Gury, I.e. ad 562. 810 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT also hear the confessions of the inmates of their monasteries intrusted to them for education, theologians do not agree. Some, amongst whom are Gury (n. 564), Lehmkuhl (n. 394), Marc (n. 1763, Q. 2), and Aertnys (n. 232), admit it, pointing out certain Orders to which this has been expressly permitted, and in this privilege (these authorities maintain) the other Orders participate. St. Alphonsus is also of this opinion (583), appealing to Bordone; also Mazzotta (1. c.), Lugo, Schmalz- grueber, and others. Lehmkuhl calls this opinion probable and says : We may, therefore, act according to the principles discussed above concerning probable jurisdiction. However, this does not seem to be generally admissible. For no law accords to Regular priests a general privilege of this kind. The extension to all other Orders of a privilege granted to some is not allowable here, for this privilege derogates from the rights of a third party, in this instance the bishop and the parish priests; and it is clear from the decisions of the sacred congre gations that unlimited jurisdiction over their students does not belong to Regulars.68 On the other hand, Regulars possess jurisdiction over their students : (1) When this jurisdiction is explicitly conferred upon an Order or educational establishment; (2) when the religious have acquired it by legitimate custom; (3) when there is question of religious in the sense that, according to the ordinances of the Council of Trent, the students can be designated as belonging to the household. This latter, however, is not the case when the house in which the educational estab lishment is situated is not actually the monastic building, or when the members of the Order and the students do not form an association of the nature of a family. Nor can those pupils be regarded as belonging to the household who pay for their board, and are yearly received into the educational establish- 68 Cf. Bouix,de Regal . T. TT. p. 5, Sect. 3, e. 2. JURISDICTION FOP* THE CONFESSIONS OF NUNS 311 ment or seminary. But as the matter is a difficult one and difference of opinion prevails amongst theologians, Bouix sug gests as a practical solution the removal of such boys or girls from parochial control.69 41. Jurisdiction and Approbation for the Confessions of Nuns. What we are about to say concerning nuns refers to nuns in the strict sense of the word, namely, to such as have taken solemn vows and are bound by the regulations of the inclosure, but not to the religious congregations which have no inclosure, nor, in general to such nuns as, with permission of their Superiors, are living outside the convent.70 The bishop can except from the general approbation any religious female congregation, and if he has done so, the con fessors must act conformably. In most dioceses the regulations of the Church concerning confessors of nuns — both ordinary and extraordinary confessors — are extended to the female congregations also which take only simple vows, and are not bound to strict inclosure. This discipline is, in fact, very good, and quite in conformity with the intention of the Holy See.71 69 Cf. Bouix, 1. c. ; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 564, nota. 70 Although, according to the rules of interpretation, by the word Mon'mles in the Papal Bulls, only Moniahs in the strict sense are to be understood, that is, the members of a Religious Order approved by the Holy See, who observe the Papal inclosure ; yet Benedict XIV has expressly declared, in his Bull "Pastoralis curse," that the ordinances of the Trid. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. which contain a part of the present discipline, only apply claustralibus monialibus. 71 This is clear from a note of the S. C. Kp. et Reg. to the constitutions of the Sisters of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin (23 July, 1860) : "As regards the confessors, the Constit. Bened. XIV, Pastoralis curse is to be observed, in accordance with which the confessors are to be appointed by the respective bishops." In the constitutions of the Sisters of Nazareth, who have no inclosure, the same congregation decreed on 27 Sept., 1861 : " As regards the Confessor, extmordin., the ordinances of the Council of Trent are to be observed, as also the Constit. Benedict XIV, Pastoralis cime." Cf. Miiller, 1. c. S. 140. 312 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT The following regulations are in force with regard to the con fessors of nuns : — I. Not every priest approved by a bishop can hear the con fessions of nuns, but only one who has received special appro bation and jurisdiction for the purpose from the Episcopus loci. Indeed, the priest approved for one convent cannot valide hear the confessions of the nuns of another convent, unless he be generally appointed for the confessions of nuns.72 II. The confessors of exempted nuns also require the appro bation of the bishop, but they are chosen and appointed by the Superiors of the Orders to whom they (the exempted nuns) are subject; and if these Superiors themselves wish to hear the confessions of the nuns who are subject to them, they must likewise obtain the approbation of the bishop. It is only when the nuns obey Superiors with quasi episcopal jurisdiction that their confessor does not require the approbation of the bishop.73 III. According to the declaration of Clement XI the confess ors of nuns should not only be learned, prudent, and pious, but also of mature years.74 The bishop must, therefore, take care that a confessor be chosen in whom the nuns may have con fidence. Without Papal authorization vicars-general, canons, and others who are bound to observe choir in virtue of a benefice, also parish priests (when the care of souls would materially suffer thereby), cannot discharge the office of an ordinary con fessor. This applies also to priests of a Religious Order with regard to nuns who are immediately subject to the bishop. The former may, however, exercise the office of extraordinary confessors. The ordinary confessor must hear the confessions 72 Cf. Const. Inscrutabili, Gregor. XV; Const. Superna, Clem. X (21 June, 1670) ; Const. Pastoralis Officii et Pastoralis curse, Bened. XIV. 73 Cf. Declarat. S. C. C. ad dub. 7 et 8, post Const. Inscrutabili, in Bul- lario posita. 74 Scavini, Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. 4, art. 2, n. 123. Ferraris ad v. Moni- ales, art. 5, n. 49. JURISDICTION FOR THE CONFESSIONS OF NUNS 313 of nuns as often as it is reasonably demanded of him. More over, he must not conduct himself as a Superior of the convent, since, according to the decree of the S. C. Ep. et Reg. 7 Sept., 1797, such authority does not belong to him.75 The confessor appointed for nuns shall not discharge his office longer than three years, and cannot, at the expiration of this period, hear confessions in the same convent without per mission of the S. C. Ep. et Reg.76 Several authorities, however (St. Alphonsus, Bouvier, Gury, Scavini), remark that the bishop may allow the confessor to exercise his office longer than three years when other suitable priests are wanting. At the time of a Jubilee, nuns, like Regulars, may, in order to gain the Jubilee indulgence, once choose for themselves any confessor from amongst priests approved by the Episcopus loci for hearing the confessions of nuns either in general or for a particular convent.77 IV. The bishops, or Superiors of Orders, who are authorized to appoint and choose the ordinary confessor, are bound to appoint an extraordinary confessor for the nuns subject to them two or three times a year. Although the nuns are not bound to confess to this extraor dinary confessor, they must, nevertheless, all repair to him, be it either to make a sacramental confession or to receive from him wholesome exhortation.78 The following is to be observed regarding the Confessarius extraordinarius : - 1. Although the Tridentine Session here speaks of inclosed nuns only (moniales claustrales) , Benedict XIV wishes the appointment of the extraordinary confessor to be extended to 75 Gury, Ed. Ratisbon. T. II. 1. c. ad n. 565. 76 Cf . Decret. S. C. Ep. et Reg., 20 Sept., 1642. 77 Const. Bened. XIV, Benedictus Deus, 25 Dec., 1750. 78 Cf. Trident. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. and Const. Bened. XIV, Pastoralis currc, 5 Aug., 1748. 314 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT all communities of nuns who have only an ordinary confessor appointed by the Superiors. 2. The choice of the extraordinary confessor belongs to the Ordinarius loci for those convents which are under him, and to the Superior of the Order for those for which the latter appoints the ordinary confessor; every extraordinary confessor must have special approbation as such from the bishop. The Supe riors of Regulars, however, cannot always appoint a priest of their own Order, but must at least, once a year, choose a secular priest or one of another Order. If the Superior of the Order neglects to choose an extraordinary confessor, the bishop must do so ; should the bishop neglect this duty, the Cardinal Grand Penitentiary must act. 3. During the time when the extraordinary confessor is exer cising his office in a community, the ordinary confessor may not remain in the community to hear confessions. 4. The extraordinary confessor may not be refused to indi vidual nuns in case of serious illness or invincible reluctance towards the ordinary confessor. The case of a nun in danger of death being refused an extraordinary confessor is provided for in the decree of the Tridentine Session, XIV. cp. 7 : in articulo mortis omnes sacerdotes quoslibet poenitentes . . . absolvere posse. But should a nun wish to confess occasionally to a particular confessor, not out of fickleness, or imprudent preference, but truly on account of her spiritual advancement, it is advisable that the Superiors should not oppose such wish.79 79 All these precepts are contained in the Trid. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. and the Constit. Benedict XIV, Pastoralis curae. Pope Leo XIII, quoted above, has renewed the same quoad confessarios ordinaries et extraordinarios by a Decretum S. Congregat. Ep. et Regul. de conscientia3 ratione Confessariis extraordinariis, etc., d. 17 Dec., 1890, and exhorts Prce- sules and Superiores, " ne extraordlnarium denegent subditis Confessarium quoties ut proprice conscientice consulant ad id subditi adigantur, quin iidem Superiores ullo modo petitionis rationem inquirant aut cegre id ferre demonstrent. Ac ne evanida tarn provida dispositio Jiat, Ordinarios exhortatur (sc. Sanctitas swa), ut in locis proprice Dioeceseos Sacerdotes facilitations instructos designent, JURISDICTION FOR THE CONFESSIONS OF NUNS 315 Extraordinary confessors, nominated by the bishop for a single occasion, can only discharge this office once. They must be approved by the bishop as often as they have to discharge the office of extraordinary confessor,80 unless they have a general approbation for the confession of nuns. ad quos pro Sacramento Pcenitentice recurrere ece facile queant" This decree was occasioned by precepts in the constitutions "plurium Congregationum, Societatum aut Institutionum sive mulierum, quce vota simplicia aut solemnia nuncupant, sive virorum professione ac regimine penitus laicorum." 80 Cf. Declar. S. C. C. ad dub. I. poss. Const. Inscrutabili et Constit. Clem. X, Superna. CHAPTER II LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION OR RESERVED CASES 42. Reserved Cases in General. THE Church has received from Christ the power to remit or to retain all sins without exception. No sin is withheld from the cognizance of its judicial authority or the power of its keys. This unlimited power of chief justice and plenipotentiary re sides in the hands of the Supreme Head of the Church ; it is in the possession of the Vicegerent of Him who has said of Him self : "To Me is given all power in heaven and on earth." In the exercise of the judicial power in foro interno, the pastors of the Church are dependent upon and subject to him. This relation between the Pope and the pastors of the Church is ex pressed in the reservations ; 81 that is, by the ecclesiastical disci pline in virtue of .which the Pope reserves certain sins in order to absolve from them himself, and places a limit upon the juris diction of the bishops by withholding from them the power to absolve from certain sins. And as the Pope proceeds with regard to the bishops, so can the bishop, and the Superiors of Orders, and those possessing quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, pro ceed with regard to their respective subordinates. This competence to declare certain sins reserved, which ex isted in the earliest times of the Church as is proved by number- 81 " Reservatio est : ablatio sen nonconcessio jurisdictionis ad absolvendum ab aliquo peccato, quamvis circa alia concedatur." Ballerini, Opus Theol Mor. 1. c. cp. II. n. 657. 310 RESERVED CASES IN GENERAL 317 less memorials, is promulgated by the Council of Trent,82 which also emphasizes the reason of this practice : "It has seemed con ducive to the morality of the Christian people that certain particularly horrible and grave sins should not be absolved by every priest, but only by those of the highest authority. It is, therefore, reasonable that the Popes, by virtue of the power invested in them over the whole Church, should reserve certain grave sins for their own tribunal." Having then assigned this power to the bishops also, the Council declares that this reser vation of sins has validity not only in the outward administra tion of the Church, but also before God. From this it follows that : - I. The motives for the reservations, apart from the mainte nance of authority, are : (a) the necessity of deterring the faith ful from the commission of these great sins by thus making it more difficult to obtain absolution ; (6) the necessity of applying a special remedy, so that those who have been guilty of such crimes may be the more efficaciously preserved from relapse. In order that the former object may be the more perfectly at tained, it is necessary in an appropriate manner to make known to the people what sins are reserved. II. We distinguish : (1) Reservation by the Pope, by a bishop, and by the Superior of an Order; (2) reserved sins, when the sin itself is directly reserved, and reserved censures, when the censure attached to a sin is reserved, and the sin itself is reserved only in consequence of the censure. If the reserved censure is only the means by which the sin is reserved, upon removal of the censure the sin is no longer reserved. In the papal reserved cases the censure only is directly reserved ; in episcopal and other reserved cases generally the sin only is reserved, not the censure. Two Papal cases, in which the sin without the censure is re served, form exceptions to this rule, namely : (a) Falsely accusing 82 Sess. XIV. cp. 7, can. IT. Cf. Perrone, De Pom. cp. 5 ; Zenner, Instruct, pract. P. I, cp. II. § 44; Palmieri, Tract. De Poen. Thes. XVII. p. 178 ss. 318 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT an innocent confessor of solicitation, either by denouncing the confessor to the ecclesiastical judge one's self, or by effecting such denunciation through another person ; 83 (6) the receiving of considerable presents exceeding the value of ten francs on the part of members of Religious Orders (emitting solemn vows) of both sexes, till restitution has taken place (munera prorsus libe- ralia are meant ; hence presents of medicaments and devotional objects, as also those presents which were given out of gratitude and benevolence or for the purpose of securing the good-will of a person, are excepted).84 If the presents amount to a higher sum, and if the penitent can make restitution, he is not to be ab solved till he has done so. If, however, he cannot make restitu tion at the time, but promises faithfully to do so as soon as possible, the confessor can absolve him. III. The power to reserve is possessed by the Pope in the whole Church; by the bishops in their dioceses; by the heads of Orders who possess quasi-episcopal jurisdiction in their Orders — the General of the Order for the whole Order, the Provincial in his province, the local head in his house — but apart from specified sins mentioned by Clement VIII, these religious Superiors may not reserve any others without consent of the general chapter.85 83 Const. Bened. XIV, Sacramentum Poenitentiae, 1 June, 1741. 84 Const. Clem. VIII, Religiosae Congregationes, 19 June, 1594, et Urban VIII, Nuper a Congregat. 16 Oct., 1640. Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. nn. 580, 693; II. A. Tr. 13, im. 8, 9 ; Ferrar, ad v. Regular, art. I. nn. 67-69. 85 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 583 ; H. A. n. 130. These specified cases are the follow ing: 1. Apostasy from the Order, even when the habit of the Order is still retained. 2. Secretly absenting one's self from the monastery at night. 3. Three forms of superstition : Veneficia, incantariones, sortilegia. 4. Pos session of property against the vow of poverty, which constitutes a mortal sin. 5. Theft (to the extent of mortal sin) of goods belonging to the monastery. 6. Lapsus carnis voluntarius opere consummatus. 7. Perjury before a lawful judge. 8. Procuratio, concilium vel auxilium ad abortum foetus animati. 9. Killing or wounding or severely beating any one. 10. Forging the handwriting or the seal of the officials of the monastery. 11. Mali ciously obstructing, delaying, or opening wrritten communications from Superiors to subordinates, or subordinates to Superiors. The confessors of RESERVED CASES IN GENERAL 319 IV. There must be valid ground for making the reservation, otherwise its effect would tend to ruin rather than to edification. Hence the undue multiplication of reserved cases is not allowed ; for many people, on account of the difficulty of getting abso lution, are likely to remain for a long time in a state of mortal sin, and are deterred from receiving the Sacraments. Clement VIII, therefore, exhorted the bishops to reserve only a few sins, and only those of which the reservation would be conducive to the maintenance of Christian morality amongst the faithful.86 Regulars must know these cases, so that, should one of them occur, they may send the penitent to the Superior or to a confessor possessing the neces sary faculties for absolution ; or that they may, according to circumstances, procure for themselves the necessary faculties for this case. But if a Reg ular priest confesses to a secular priest or to a priest of another Order (for example, on a journey — see above), it is disputed whether this confessor possesses the power to absolve from the reserved cases of the monastery. For Capuchins sojourning out of their monastery the power has been given by Benedict XIV (30 March, 1742) and confirmed by Pius IX (1852), with the understanding, however, that the penitent appears before his Superior or the confessor appointed by him as soon as possible and receives absolution anew. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 575-583. 86 S. Alph. n. 579 ; Bened. XIV, De Synodo, Lib. V. cp. 5. The Pope says : " Although in this matter no absolute and universal standard can be estab lished, the general exhortations and decrees which the Sacred Congregations at Rome have issued upon the subject may serve as a guide : — "On January 9, 1601, the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars issued the following exhortation to the bishops : In order that the bishops who are empowered to reserve may not unduly burden their subjects and confessors with reserved cases, they are all exhorted to reserve only a few cases, and those only which they believe themselves bound to reserve in the interests of Christian morality, and for the welfare of the souls committed to them, according to the condition and character of each diocese. This exhortation was repeated on Nov. 26. On the same day, the same Congre gation issued a circular letter to the bishops, in which the following exhor tations are addressed to them : The bishops should take care that they do not indiscriminately reserve those cases to which the greater excommunica tion is by law attached, absolution for which is reserved to no one, except when the special reservation of such cases appears necessary on account of frequent scandal, or some other urgent ground ; nor those cases in which absolution is granted only when restitution has been made, or that performed which the penitents are bound to perform ; nor should they reserve those 320 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT V. As reservation is a limitation of jurisdiction, it concerns the confessor directly, and the penitent indirectly. From this it follows that : - 1. In the matter of reservation, strangers are not to be treated according to the reservation of the place where they confess, but according to that in force at their place of residence, exactly in accordance with the principles concerning the jurisdiction of the confessors of strangers which we have stated above. It is, therefore, more correct to say that they are absolved by virtue of the jurisdiction which the bishop of the penitent gives, and it is reasonable to assume that the latter does not wish to limit the jurisdiction of confessors outside his diocese to whom members of his own diocese confess, unless he has reserved a sin in his own diocese. If, therefore, the stranger confesses a sin which is reserved in the diocese in which he confesses, — a diocese which is not his own, — the confessor can absolve him, quia absolvit vi ju- risdictionis delegatce ab Episcopo, qui peccatum illud non reservat.81 cases which, although great sins, are yet matters of lesser importance, and of frequent occurrence amongst uneducated people ; such as cases of damni- Jicatio injusta, etc. In reserving sins of the flesh they must proceed with great circumspection on account of the danger of scandal, especially when suspicion might fall upon persons either from their going to extraordinary confessors, or frequently recurring to the bishop. Finally the bishops are admonished to adopt and adhere to that course of action, which, after mature consideration of the customs, natural disposition and tendency of the neigh borhood and people appears to them to be the best before the Lord. - The decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council are couched in a similar strain. This Council ordered a bishop who had accumulated too many reserved cases to choose ten or at most twelve of the more considerable offenses, as he thought proper, and to strike out the rest." 87 Reuter, Theol. Mor. De Poenitent. n. 371. Cf. Stotz, Trib. Poenit. Lib. II. Q. 2, § 5, n. 64. Schmalzgrueber, 1. c. Lib. I. Tit. 29, n. 31, and many others. This is, in fact, the doctrine which is generally received as valid amongst the older moralists. Many of the later ones, it is true, teach that a stranger cannot be absolved from a sin which is reserved in the dio cese in which he confesses, falsely assuming that the priest who hears the confession of a penitent coming from a strange diocese is restrained by his own bishop from absolving. See Ballerini, Notae ad Gury, II. n. 573, and Opus Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. De Reservat. Casuum, n, 709 ss. RESERVED CASES IN GENERAL 321 In practice the rule can be laid down that it is always allowed to absolve a stranger from reserved sins, except when : (1) the sin is reserved in both the dioceses, that of the confessor and that of the stranger, or (2) when the stranger leaves his diocese in order to confess "in fraudem legis," that is, to evade the judg ment of his Superior,88 which may be assumed to be the case when the sin is of such a nature that it may easily be brought before the forum externum, or may already, in some form, be before it, so that absolution could not be administered even in foro interno without the permission of the bishop.89 2. Although Regulars do not necessarily receive delegated jurisdiction from the bishop but from the Pope, they cannot absolve penitents from sins reserved in the respective dioceses, without having received special faculties from the bishop; the Popes have distinctly so decreed.90 The episcopal reservation is binding also for non-exempted nuns; whether it is so for the exempted, is a matter of controversy. St. Alphonsus 91 declares both opinions, affirmative and negative, probable. But should a bishop refuse to the confessor of nuns jurisdiction over reserved cases, the absolution of the latter for such sins would undoubt- 88 If the strange penitent confesses a sin which is reserved in his own dio cese but not in that in which he confesses, he can undoubtedly be absolved by a priest of a Religious Order, in virtue of the privilege granted by the Pope to Regulars, Const. " Superna," Clem. X. As regards secular priests, the older theologians maintain that they could not absolve the stranger in this case (they appeal to the Caput Si Episcop. 2 de Poenit. in 6°), while the later theologians unreservedly allow secular priests to participate in the priv ileges of the priests of Religious Orders; for there exists, they say, a general custom that strangers, in this case also, are absolved by secular priests, and as the bishops approve of this proceeding, the strangers would be valide et licite absolved. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. n. 573, notte ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 403 ; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 239, in both cases decides otherwise Princ. Ill ; and Marc, 1. c. n. 1771, Qiuesit. III. 89 Cf. Mazzotta, 1. c. Disp. 2, Q. 3, cp. 3, Sect. 2 in fine; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 404; Ballerini adds, "si Episcopus expresse in v it us sit." Notoe ad Gury, II. n. 573, Q. 5, nota II in fine. Cf. S. Alph. n. 589. 90 Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 403. Aertnys teaches otherwise, 1. c. n. 239. 91 L. c. n. 602. 322 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT edly be invalid ; for the bishop gives jurisdiction for the exempted nuns also, as is plain from the words of Gregory XV.92 Whether the familiares of Regulars may be absolved without faculties from the bishop depends in general upon the fact whether they are absolved by virtue of episcopal or of Regular jurisdiction. When they are absolved by confessors appointed by the Superior of the Order, they are not subject to episcopal reservation ; but if they are absolved by other confessors (secu lar priests), it seems that they are subject to episcopal reserva tion. If, however, it is a question of sins to which the bishop has attached censure, they do not, as a rule, incur this censure, since they must be treated as strangers.93 VI. In order that the objects of the reservation may be at tained, and this is only possible by a moderate use of the power of reservation, grave sins only are as a rule reserved. Such is the decision of the Council of Trent.94 The following conditions are necessary for the valid reservation of a sin:95 (1) It must be (and that ex natura rei, in order that it be reserved plena sensu) a mortal sin, both as regards the internal and the external act; (2) it must have been carried out completely, not merely at tempted, wished, begun ; and (3) it must be reserved in definite terms. These conditions are by common custom deemed nec essary. A Superior who reserves is, therefore, supposed to be guided by them unless he has expressly declared himself to the contrary. But Superiors generally attach particular conditions and exceptions to their reservations, which must be gathered from their instructions. The following remarks may serve for more explicit explana tion: (1) As venial sins are not materia necessaria of absolution, 92 Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 570. - 93 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 583; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 403; Aertnys, 1. c. III. 2, n. 239. 94 Sess. XIV. cp. 7. Cf. Deer. S. C. Cone. 26 Nov., 1602. 95 Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. De Reservations Casuuin, n. 661 ss. EESEEVED CASES IN GENERAL 323 they cannot be reserved in the strict and full sense. Even if it be per se possible that the Superior can withdraw from a priest the power to absolve sacramentally with regard to a venial sin, he cannot oblige the penitent to procure sacramental absolution from this venial sin. This applies also (2) to really and posi tively doubtful sins. Indeed, as St. Alphonsus teaches,96 a sin which is in any respect doubtful is, according to ecclesiastical custom and the concurrent teaching of the authorities, regarded as not reserved. For, even if any sin which is materia neces- saria of confession might from the very nature of the case be reserved, yet this is not so in practice, and as reservation is a lex odiosa, it must be interpreted stride. A sin is, therefore, regarded as not reserved : (a) when there is doubt as to its sub jective gravity, and (6) when there is doubt as to its objective gravity (unless the Superior, for particular motives, has declared as gravis a materia which, ex se, is not positively gravis, in which case it would be necessary to stand by his decision) ; moreover (c), there is no reservation when doubt exists as to whether a positively reserved sin has been committed, or whether it has been committed with the necessary conditions, nor is there res ervation when doubt exists as to whether a sin really committed is a reserved sin. But in this case (in dubio juris) the sin would be reserved if the confessor merely private errore doubted the reservation, or if he did not know the sin was actually reserved. But in some dioceses the bishops have declared that the con fession in such a case is valid, and that they do not regard a sin as reserved if the confessor privato errore or ex ignorantia does not believe a sin to be reserved.97 If, therefore, the confessor supposes a sin to be reserved, he must carefully examine if the sin be interne grave, if it has been committed with full advertence, and with full consent of the will in materia gravi, and if it is also grave quoad actum externum ; for 96 L. c. n. 600. 97 S. Alph. 1. c. n. 600; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 405; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 242. 324 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT if the external act were not of a grave nature, it would not be reserved although it might be inwardly a great sin. For in stance, should a person in a heretical frame of mind have said something which neither contained heresy in se, nor, on account of the circumstances, showed an heretical tendency, his sin would not be reserved.98 The Church is, in fact, accustomed to reserve only peccata externa, although it cannot be doubted that she can also reserve peccata mere interna, as this class of grave sins is, by divine law, subject to the absolving power of the Church in foro interno." 3. That a sin should be reserved it must be completion, com pleted ; that is, completed in the manner implied by the reserva tion. When, therefore, in the words of the (reserving) law, an external, completed action is specified, — murder, for instance, — and the outward completion is wanting (in this case, the death of the victim), there is no reservation. If, on the other hand, attempting crime, or advising it, are per se reserved, it suffices to have done these acts to make the sin reserved, though the project has not been executed or the sinful advice failed to pro duce any effect. Frequently such incomplete actions are, how ever, reserved as accessory only to the principal action. If this latter has been certainly completed, then these accessory actions are reserved. VII. The question: "Must the penitent be aware that his sin is a reserved one in order that it should be reserved?" is a subject of animated controversy among the theologians.100 It is beyond all doubt that bishops can so reserve the sins of their subjects that the reservation holds even when the penitent knows nothing about it. Whether they do reserve in this man ner without a formal declaration to that effect, is a debatable 98 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 582, with Suarez, Lugo, Tamburini, and others. 99 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 582. 100 Cf. Gury-Balleriui, Notse ad n. 571, Q. 1, Opus Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp II. nn. 724-735. RESERVED CASES IN GENERAL 325 question. St. Alphonsus and not a few other theologians teach that a sin is reserved even when the penitent did not know of the reservation, assigning as sole, or at least chief, reason that the reservation restricts the power of the confessor.101 The fear that Christian and religious discipline might thereby be relaxed is alleged as a second reason.102 On the other hand, a very great number of theologians 103 teach that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved if the penitent did not know that it was so, when the reservation is pcenalis, that is, when it is of a punitive character; but that it is to be regarded as reserved when the reservation is medicinalis, imposed as a deterrent; that is, when it is not a pcena medicinalis, which, like the censure, is intended to break the stubbornness of the sinner and deter him from sin, but a lex disciplinaris , by which the Superior himself, or through a specially delegated confessor, wishes to provide a remedy for sin committed. When, there fore, Lugo denies that reservation is chiefly of a punitive char acter, and, therefore, holds good even if the sinner did not know of the reservation when he was sinning, we agree with him and with Lehmkuhl.104 101 This reason is plainly not a valid one, since all theologians, including the opponents of this view, admit that reservation directly limits jurisdiction ; these latter, however, declare that certain circumstances are required to make a sin reserved, and that it is questionable if the knowledge of the reserva tion is such a circumstance or not. 102 This is not convincing; for as soon as the penitent confesses a reserved sin, the confessor will tell him of the reservation, and thus a check will be put upon the relaxation of morality for the future ; for the sins that have been already committed, neither one opinion nor the other can offer any preventive remedy. 103 The Theol. of Salamanca, Tr. 18, cp. 6, n. 12 ; Lugo, De Pcen. Disp. 20, n. 11; Sanchez, De Matrim. 1. 9, Disp. 32, nn. 17, 18; Sporer, De Poenit. n. 735; Mazzotta, Tract. 6, Disp. 2, Q. 3, cp. 2, § 2, and many others; see Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. 104 L. c. n. 407. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, 1. c. This may at least constitute a rule for most dioceses. We must, in fact, assume that the bishop has reserved sins in the manner in which they are generally understood by the confessor to be reserved, unless it is shown by positive evidence that the 326 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT If, however, it is a question of reserved censures, the censure is considered not reserved when the penitent did not know of the reservation, as only he incurs a censure who knew of it and yet committed the act to which it is attached. Concerning the Papal reservations, at least, unanimity upon this point prevails among the theologians, as these reservations exist chiefly on account of the censure. With regard to episcopal cases no unanimity exists. Here, as Suarez rightly teaches, we must have regard for the circumstances ; that is, for the terms of the reservation, for custom, and for the power of the person who reserves, etc.105 But if the penitent knew of the censure and did not know of the reservation, the theory of some few theolo gians that, in this case, also the censure is not reserved, is rightly regarded as lax and altogether improbable. 43. The Papal Reserved Cases. In the year 1869 Pius IX issued his celebrated Bull " Apos- toliccB Sedis moderationi" the object of which was to reduce the number of censures imposed at different times, to explain them, and to bring their wording to such form that uncertainty and doubt on the part of the faithful and of confessors might cease. By virtue of his apostolical power he therein decreed that of all the censures ever imposed, whether excommunication bishop adopts the opinion of those theologians who teach that a reservation is not incurred by one who is not aware of its existence. Till the later con troversy, however, it was always the general conviction that reservation was understood to be incurred by one who did not know of it ; this is testified by many authors. We must, therefore, assume that the legislator so under stood his law. But if, with the knowledge of the bishop and without pro test on his part, it be anywhere taught that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved for one who does not know of the reservation, this may be consid ered a sufficiently valid indication that the bishop does not wish to bind those who are ignorant of the reservation. Lehinkuhl, I. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 571. 105 S. Alph. 1. c. nn. 580, 581, dub. 2; Lacroix 1. c. n. 1014; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. V. n. 571. THE PAPAL RESERVED CASES 327 or suspension or interdict, only those should henceforth legally remain in force which were explicitly introduced into or quoted in his constitution; that they should derive their validity not only from the authority of the ancient canons, but also from this constitution itself, just as though they wefe there for the first time imposed. This Bull possesses force and validity for the whole Church from the moment when it was promulgated ad valvas Ecclesice S. Salvatoris.1™ The Bull deals with censures107 only, and these are either Excommunications,108 Suspensions, or Interdicts.109 /. Excommunicationes speciali modo Romano Pontifici reser- vatce. The excommunication spec, modo reserved to the Pope is incurred by : no 106 Cf. Archive fur Kirchenrecht (1871), XXV. 148. The other sources of the Papal reserved cases are the Council of Trent, of which the censures still remain in force which were directly imposed by this Council and are not touched by the Bull " Apost. Sed.," and those Papal decrees which have been issued for the imposition of censures since the appearance of the Bull " Apost. Sed.," that is, after the year 1869. 107 The two Papal cases spoken of above in which the sin is reserved, are, therefore, not quoted in it, but are in force. 108 They are (1) those which, in an especial manner (speciali modo) are reserved to the Pope, (2) those which are simply reserved to the Pope, (3) those which are reserved to the bishops, and (4) those which are reserved to no one. The two first classes are to be kept apart from each other, for a person possessing the faculty to absolve from the Papal cases does not nec essarily possess the faculty to absolve from the cases which are speciali modo reserved, if this addition is not expressly made. By virtue of the jus com mune (Cone. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. 6) it belongs to the bishop to absolve from the second class if the cases are secret. 109 Jan. Bucceroni (S. J.), Commentar. de Constitut. Ap. Sed. (Romse, 1888); Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VII. Tract. T. II. III.; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. II. Lib. II. Tract. I. n. 920 ss. ; Avan/ini, De Constit. Ap. Sed. Commentarii (Rom., 1872) ; Heiner, Die Kirchlichen Censuren. Paderb. 1884, S. 52 ff. ; Kirchenlexikon (2. Ann.) Apost. Sed. Vol. I. 1, 1125 ff. 110 There are twelve of them in the Bull " Ap. Sed." which were all, with the exception of the tenth, contained in the Bull " Csenas," but not all eodem modo; to these is added the thirteenth ex Constit. Pii IX, Romanus Ponti- fex, 28 Aug., 1873. 328 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT 1. All who have fallen from the Christian faith (apostates) and all heretics, of whatever name and sect they may be, as well as their adherents, supporters, and all their defenders in general. As the expression "Omnes a Christiana fide apostatas" is of general application, not only are all those Christians who have embraced Judaism or heathenism comprised in it, but also the so-called freethinkers who wholly give themselves up to unbelief, and have openly renounced all religion ; also rationalists, spiritu alists, materialists, pantheists, deists, atheists, illuminati, those who profess indifferentism in religion or a merely natural reli gion, and other unbelievers of similar character, who belong to the order of Freemasons or adopt the principles of that order, even when, here and there, some of its members surround them selves with a halo of religion.111 In order that the confessor may know who incurs excommuni cation under the expression Omnes et singulos hcereticos he must form an accurate conception of heresy, which demands: (a) error formalis, a conscious and voluntary denial joined to per- tinacia, (b) the denial of an article of faith promulgated by the Church, (c) the external expression of such denial, (d) a knowl edge of the penalty incurred.112 If any one of these marks is absent, there is no excommunication. In connection with this, Renninger remarks:113 "At a time when, in our social life, the waves of unbelief run so high, prudence, deliberation, and knowledge are in an especial manner necessary to him who has the care of souls, that hasty judgment may be avoided. How ever mindful he may be of his office as teacher, he must never forget the demands of Christian charity; he should never let himself be drawn into disputes which lead to nothing, still less should he provoke them; he should never be carried away 111 Cf . Pruner, Moraltheol. p. 121 ; Heiner, a. a. O. § 53, p. 53. 112 Cf. S. Thorn. II. II. Q. 11, art. 1; Suarez, De virt. Theol. Disp. 19, Sects. 1 and 5. 118 Pastoral Theology, a. a. O. § 57, p. 158. THE PAPAL RESERVED CASES 329 by violence. Positive assent to a dogma he should only demand when his office forces him to do so. He should, especially in the confessional, take for granted that he who believes in the Church, believes also in her dogmas. He should not put tempt ing questions. He should remember that many howl with the wrolves without really knowing what the howling is about, being merely anxious not to lose the nimbus of liberalism. He should make the way of those who are returning as smooth as is possible without violating the laws of the Church. The retractation extra confessionale, which cannot be dispensed with, may often be clothed in a form which is not wounding to self-respect, and is yet valid. Intimations to this effect have been forwarded in a confidential manner to their clergy by dif ferent Ordinaries, who were moved by a judicious zeal for the salvation of souls." To this class belong also the "Credentes," that is, those who give credence and who — without formally professing heretical doctrine, without pertinacia, or without sufficient knowledge, pose as heretics — openly profess assent to a heretical doctrine by word, sign, or action explicitly or implicitly, in a. general way. To these also belong the " Re- ceptores," those who afford to apostates or heretics, but only as apostates and heretics (quatenus hccretici et non ex. gr. qua fures sunt) shelter and receive or conceal them in order to protect them from punishment for heresy; to these also belong the jautores, those who in any way render assistance (per omissionem or per commissionem) to apostates or heretics. Finally, we may mention the defensores, those who, in any way, by force or by cunning, by word or by writing, protect heretics as such, or their doctrines or their books. 2. All those who, without permission of the Holy See, know ingly read, print, keep, or in any way defend the books of the above-mentioned apostates and heretics, if the defense of heresy is the subject-matter of these books; as, also, the readers, printers, possessors, or defenders of those books which, by a 330 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT Papal document (Encyclical, Brief, or Bull) are, by name (that is, by statement of the title of the book), forbidden. (a) The Readers. Reading here must be understood as a moral not merely a physical act, when, for example, the reader understands nothing of the language ; 114 in this kind of reading must be included causing a book to be read to one (not merely listening, however sinful the latter may be) since, where there is eadem ratio also eadem est juris disposition Moreover, in order to incur the censure, it is necessary that a part sufficient to con stitute a mortal sin, about a page, be read;116 that the reading should take place scienter, that is, with knowledge that the book has been written by an apostate or heretic ; finally, it is requisite that it should defend heresy and that the reading or keeping should take place without authorization from the Holy See. (6) The readers of books in the proper sense of the word, be they written117 or printed, not of merely printed matter, as brochures, pam phlets, newspapers, periodical sheets, etc., although the reading of such products of the day may often be, and very often is, more dangerous to faith and morals than the reading of a bad book, and there is no doubt that the reading and keeping of such literature is always a great sin, being an offense against the natural law.118 (c) The Retinentes, that is, all those who know ingly retain in their possession for some time, either in their 114 Cf. Suarez, De Fide, 20, 2, 18. 115 Regula juris in VI. 116 The graintas material is here to be estimated both ex re quce tractatur and ex quantitate ; if the exposition or defense of a heretical doctrine is read, the half, or the third, of a page suffices. 117 Some authors, as d'Annibale and Melata, restrict the censures to printed books. 118 But if these lesser publications are parts of a book of the same con tents, they are (subject to the above-mentioned conditions) in the category of forbidden books, especially if they are bound together in one volume. Periodical publications, therefore, of which every separate number is regarded as a part of the whole yearly issue, fall under the reserved censure; but not newspapers, as with these there is no question of parts belonging to each other, each separate number being regarded as complete in itself. (Act. S. Sed. Vol. VI. fasc. 5, p. 9, Append. 3, p. 133.) THE PAPAL RESERVED CASES 331 own homes or in that of a stranger, in their own name or in that of another, a book forbidden in the manner above specified. (d) The Imprimentes, that is, all those who directly cooperate or assist, as causce morales or physicce, in printing : authors, publishers, printers, (e) The Dejendentes, that is, those who defend books which are forbidden in the sense specified above.119 Accordingly he does not incur this excommunication : (1) who only reads or keeps a few separate leaves of such a book or periodicals, etc. ; (2) who reads perfunctorily ; (3) who reads from necessity, to be able to refute a heretic, and was not able previously to procure the necessary permission ; (4) if his reading is only a phys ical act, without his being able to understand anything; (5) if he keeps a book for a short time only, for example, a day or two, or only till he has obtained the permission requested, or if he has no opportunity of giving the book to the Superior. 12C 119 It remains to be remarked that the ten rules of the Index itself are not touched by this ordinance of the Bull, but that the Excnmm. kit. sent. attached at the end of the regul. X falls away, as it was not directly attached by the Council of Trent itself, but by Pius IV. Consequently the reading and keeping of heretical books, or of such as are condemned by a decree of the Congregation of the Index remains, indeed, still forbidden in the future, but the punishment of the now specially reserved excommunication is incurred only in two cases : (a) when the author of the book is an apostate or a heretic, and the book, moreover, not only contains heresy, but ex pro- fesso defends it, and (6) when the latter, be the author who he may, is, with exact specification of the title, forbidden by a Papal Brief, or a Bull, or an Encyclical Letter. Although the Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum of Leo XIII (25 Jan., 1897) has considerably mitigated the prohibitions of Clement VIII, Alexander VII, and Benedict XIV, in regard to the reading and propagating of noxious literature, nevertheless the warnings against the intellectual and moral dangers of bad books, which the Index Congre gation addresses to Catholics, retain their full force. The confessor should of course remember that the censures attached to the reading of forbidden books are applicable only where there is a conscious violation of the prohi bition ; furthermore, that not only ignorance, but also a general conmetudo lessening the danger to faith or morals, constitute a mitigating circumstance which demands wise discrimination on the part of confessors who apply the laws of the Index. Few Catholics in English-speaking countries know what books are on the Index, and that fact itself is a reason for moderate judg ment. 12° Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VII. nn. 295, 284, 292. 332 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT 3. Schismatics and all who obstinately refuse obedience to the reigning Pope. 4. All those who, whatever their position may be, or the dignity they may hold, appeal from the injunctions or orders of the reigning Popes to a future general Council ; moreover the aiders, advisers, and favorers of such. 5. All those who kill, maim, strike, take prisoner, or keep prisoner, or persecute in hostile manner cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, Papal legates, or nuncios; those who expel them from their dioceses, or lands belonging to them, or estates in their possession; as those also who order or sanc tion such acts, or give help, advice, or encouragement in their execution. 6. Those who directly or indirectly hinder the execution of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and who, for this purpose (ad hoc),121 apply to the secular power, as well as those who cause or publish the commands of such persons, or afford help, advice, or coun tenance in such proceeding. The ecclesiastical juridical power is the lawful competence of the Church to govern her subjects in respect to everything that belongs to their eternal welfare. This power is exercised in foro externo and interno. The Exer- citium ordinis (consecrare, benedicere, etc.) is to be distinguished from the Exercitium jurisdictionis. 7. Those who directly or indirectly compel secular judges to cite ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal contrary to ca nonical regulations (unless it should be the case that ecclesiasti cal regulations, either general or particular (Concordats) allow this), as well as those who issue laws or regulations against the freedom or rights of the Church. This canon refers to condi tions which, though still extant in certain parts of Europe, have hardly any force in the United States and other missionary 121 This does not add a new condition for incurring the censure leveled against the impedientes exercitium jurisdictionis, but only introduces another class of the same offenders (as Avanzini and Heiner, p. 87, assume). THE PAPAL RESERVED CASES 338 countries; it protects the privilegium fori of clerics, and in a general way the freedom and rights of the Church.122 8. Those who apply to the secular power to prevent the execu tion of decrees or of any acts proceeding from the Holy See or its legates or delegates, as also those who directly or indirectly actually prevent the promulgation or execution of such, or who, on account of these decrees or acts, injure or threaten others (agents, mandatories). 9. The forgers of Papal documents, the promulgators or subscribers of such forged Papal documents (litterarum Apos- tolicarum etiam in forma Brevis ac supplicationum gratiam vel justitiam concernentium) . 10. Absolventes complices in peccato turpi, etc. ; see § 46. 11. Those who usurp or sequestrate (jurisdictionem) rights of jurisdiction (secular rights appertaining to the Church by virtue of any legal titles, for instance, fiscal rights, etc.), the goods or revenues of ecclesiastics, which belong to them ratione suarum ecdesiarum aut beneficiorum (that is by virtue of their ecclesias tical position). Mere thieves and even robbers of Church property, accord ingly, do not come under the censure here pronounced, as they cannot be classed under the definition either of usurpantes or sequestrantes (cf. S. C. Inq. 9 March, 1870), nor does the pur chasing by contract of such goods from usurpers come under it. But the latter is subject to the Tridentine censure, the censure reserved simply to the Pope (cf. S. C. Off. 8 July, 1874). Whether 122 As to the disputed question whether one is included amongst the cogentes who denounces and prosecutes a cleric before the civil court, so that the judge, in consequence of this denunciation, is officially compelled to summon the accused cleric, and pronounce sentence upon him according to the provisions of existing law, we refer the reader to Heiner, who discusses this point. According to him, the sententia communior et fere communis teaches that such a one falls under the censure, while the negative opinion is not improbable. Moreover, a declaration of the S. C. Tnq. 23 Jan., 1886, favors this latter opinion. Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. Lib. VII. Tract. 1, n. 82; d'Annibale (Melata) Manuale Theol. Mor. p. 260. 334 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT the property of monasteries is included, is a matter of contro versy; the property of pious foundations is not included. The estates of monasteries fall under the Tridentine censure. 12. All those who, themselves or through others, attack towns, territories, or villages, belonging to the Roman Church, destroy or occupy them; as also those who arrogate to themselves supreme administrative power in these places, disturb or stop the execution of such power, and those who afford help, advice, and countenance in such work. 13. Accordingly, the canons and dignitaries of vacant cathe dral churches, and, in the absence of a Chapter, all those who are competent to appoint a vicar-capitular, or to govern the bereaved diocese themselves, incur the excommunication spe cially reserved to the Pope, as well as suspension of the revenues of their benefices, if they presume to admit a bishop elected by the Chapter, or one presented by the secular power, for the government and administration of the vacant church before these persons have accredited themselves by submitting the Papal documents bearing upon their appointments, — and that for so long as the Apostolic See may think proper to keep this suspension in force; moreover, those chosen or nominated and presented for vacant churches who presume to undertake the government and administration of these churches ex concessione et translatione, de qua supra (that is, before this submitting of credentials) , as well as all those who have obeyed, or given help, advice, or countenance to such acts, cujuscumque status, con- ditionis, prce-eminentice et dignitatis fuerint. To this is added: When any one of the above-named persons is invested with the dignity of a bishop, ha incurs the penalty of suspension ab exer- citio Pontificalium and of the Interdict ab ingressu Ecclesice, which overtakes him ipso facto absque ulla declaratione, and is reserved to the Apostolic See.123 123 Cf. Reiner, a. a. O. S. 124 ff. ; Gury-Ballerini, H. n. 973. Aertnys, 1. c. n. THE PAPAL RESERVED CASES 335 14. The so-called " civil government pastors/' appointed by the State, qui suffragante populo ad parochi sive vicarii officium electi audeant sive ecclesicc sive jurium ac bonorwn prcetensam pos- sessionem arripere atque obire munia ecclesiastici ministerii, incur the same excommunication, in accordance with a solemn decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (13 May, 1874). 124 //. Excommunicationes latce sententice Romano Pontifici sim- pliciter reservatce. There are eighteen of these, to which are added one of the Council of Trent, and another ex declaratione S. C. Inq. : — 1. All who publicly or privately teach or defend tenets which are condemned by the Holy See under pain of excommunicatio latcc sententicc, as also those who teach and uphold that the prac tice of asking the penitent the name of the accomplice is allowed. To the propositions, the teaching and defending of which involves the above censure, do not belong such tenets as are simply condemned by the Pope, as those included in the Sylla bus, for example, or which are interdicted under other censures and penalties. 2. Those who, incited by the devil (suadente diabolo), lay violent hands on clerics, or religious, unless the power of abso lution is accorded to the bishops or others, either jure or privilegio. The words suadente diabolo imply that there is question of a grave sin. This censure is, accordingly, not in curred if the percussio take place either ob legitimam sui defen- sionem, vel ob justam subditi Clerici correptionem, vel ex joco aut casu fortuito vel ex subita ira, vel ex ignorantia that the person struck is a cleric. On the other hand, the censure extends also to impuberes and the efficaciter cooperantes.125 124 Heiner, a. a. O. S. 127 if. 125 Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. n. 945. The bishop can jure absolve, if the percussio was levis, etiam publica (thus the vicars-general also can absolve), and when the percussio, no matter whether enorm/x, gravis, or levis. is a delict um occul- tum. The Prcelati regulares can, ex privilegio, absolve their subordinates from this censure. 336 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT 3. Duellists, even when they only challenge to a duel, 01 accept the challenge, and all accomplices and abettors. The censures attached to the duel are, therefore, incurred by : — (1) the duellists themselves, whether the duel takes place with or without witnesses) whether wounding follows or not; (2) the challengers to a duel, even when the challenge is not accepted; (3) he who accepts the challenge, even when no duel takes place, and when the parties to the proposed duel do not meet; (4) the seconds, those who accompany the duellists, and in fact all those who afford countenance and assistance to them, and who, by advice, or in any other way, make them selves accomplices; (5) the spectators who to that end, and of set purpose, repair to the scene of the encounter, as such onlooking is a further incitement to the encounter; (6) the persons in authority who permit this, and, as far as in them lies, do not forbid it. 4. Those who belong to the sect of the Freemasons or Car bonari or to other sects of the kind (Fenians in America and Ireland) 126 who agitate either openly or in secret against the Church or the lawful government, as well as all who in any way countenance these sects, or do not denounce their secret heads and leaders (to the local ecclesiastical superiors) when they clearly realize their duty of denouncing. Political partisans, so long as they employ only the means which modern public law places at their disposal in their endeavors to realize their ideal of the future social state, do not incur this censure. 5. The violators of the rights of the sanctuary. 6 and 7. The violators of the inclosure in monasteries and convents. Only the violation of the so-called Papal inclosure, that is, the inclosure prescribed by general ecclesiastical law to 126 By a decree of the S. O. 20 Aug., 1894, the American societies of Odd Fellows, Good Templars, and Knights of Pythias were condemned; v. Bucceroni, Supplementum bibliothecse ; Ferraris, s. v. Sectarii; 8. C. Inq. 12 Jan., 1870. Cf. Gen. Index Ecclesiastical Review. THE PAPAL RESERVED CASES 337 the Orders with solemn vows, brings with it the excommunica tion here mentioned ; not the violation of that inclosure which is observed in the more recent Congregations of men or women either on account of their rules, or of a particular vow, or also in consequence of a regulation of the local bishop. Not only do the violators of the inclosure incur the excommunication, but all, Superiors or others, who, without lawful reasons, permit entrance. 8, 9, and 10 refer to simony: real (8); confidential (9); in the bestowal of benefices, and real on entering a Religious Order (10). 11 and 12 are directed against the abuse of spiritual favors for the purpose of unworthy gain, which may take place by procuring for one's self: (11) material profit in the dispensing of indulgences and other spiritual graces, or (12) by collecting Mass stipends at a higher price, and having these Masses said in places where a lower fee is customary. While number 11 concerns only the "inferiores Episcopis," number 12 applies to all collectors (colligentes) who procure profit to themselves by the above-mentioned proceedings. 13. Those who alienate and mortgage lands belonging to the Roman Church. 14. Members of Religious Orders who, without permission of the local parish priest, presume to administer to clerics or lay men the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or the Eucharist as viaticum; except in case of necessity. 15. Those who, without lawful permission, remove from the holy cemeteries and catacombs of the city of Rome and its territories, relics (therefore, only remains of saints, corpora vel paries corporis, etiam in minima particula, quibus indubia mar- tyrii signa adjuncta sunt; cf. S. R. C. 10 Dec., 1863), and those who help and countenance them. 16. Those who are associated in crimine criminoso with a per son whom the Pope has, by name, excommunicated, that is, 338 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT who, by helping or countenancing, take part in the crime on account of which the originator was, by mention of name, ex communicated by the Pope. 17. Clerics who knowingly and without compulsion associate in divinis (that is, in the Church's offices) with one by name excommunicated by the Pope, and permit such to participate in divine service. In order, therefore, that this excommunication be incurred, the'communicatio must be: (a) with a person by name excom municated by the Pope; (b) knowingly and (c) voluntarily. According to the general and unanimous explanation the et is not to be taken as disjunctive but conjunctive, so that the " communicantes in divinis," with a person by name excommuni cated, and the "ipsos in officiis recipientes" are to be interpreted as members of a sentence which necessarily belong to each other.127 " Divina" and " offitia" are merely synonymous terms. 18. Those who presume, without proper permission, etiam quovis prwtextu, to absolve from the excommunications reserved speciali modo to the Pope — that is, extra casum legitimi im- pedimenti eundi Romam. 19. Missionaries who quocunque modo sive per se sive per alios engage in commerce in Indiis Orientalibus et America, and those Superiors who have not censured their subordinates offending on this head. Ex authent. Dedarat. S. C. Inq. 4 Dec., 1872, a Pio IX approbata. 20. Refers to clerics and laymen quacunque dignitate etiam imperiali aut regali who unlawfully appropriate jurisdictions, interests, rights, also fiefs and hereditary tenures, incomes, usufruct, or revenues from any church or benefice, from the monies pietatis and other pia loca. (This is an extension of the number 11 above, in section I of the Censures.)128 127 Ileiner, a. a. O. S. 226 ; Aertnys, 1. c. 103. 128 Cf. Trid. Sess. XXII. cp. 11 de ref. THE PAPAL RESERVED CASES 339 ///. Excommunicationes Ordinariis Reservatce.129 1. Clerics in major Orders, monks, and nuns, who, after hav ing taken the solemn vow of chastity (not the simple) dare to contract marriage, as also all who attempt to perform the mar riage rite over the above-named persons — such marriage being of itself invalid. 2. All who cause abortion.130 3. Those who knowingly make use of forged Papal docu ments, or lend assistance in this crime. IV. Excommunicationes non Reservatce. 1. Those who order or insist with force that notorious here tics or those by name excommunicated, or by name interdicted, should be buried with the rites of the Church. 2. All those who injure or threaten the inquisitors, accusers, witnesses, or other servants of the Holy Office in the perform ance of their duty, or who steal or destroy the official documents of this Office, or who afford help, advice, or countenance in any one of these actions. 3. This excommunication falls upon the vendors (alienantes) or receivers (recipere prcesumentes) of Church property who 129 By the name " Ordinarii" are to be understood not only the bishops and capitular-vicars, but also vicars-general, Prcelnti regulares and others who possess episcopal jurisdiction. The confessarii regulares also can absolve from this class of excommunication inforo conscientice. Pius IX has only revoked the privileges to absolve a casibus R. Pontijici reseruatis ; ex sententia probabiliori. Regulars can, vi complurium privilegiorum a S. Sede concessorum, absolve from the censures reserved by the common law to the bishops. Cf. S. Alph. 1. c. n. 99, and l)e Privil. n. 100. Those censures are excepted which the Ordinaries have reserved to themselves. 130 It is ve.rus abortus which is here punished, that is, foetus immaturi ejectio adeo ut mors ipsius inde secuta sit, therefore, not the partus prcematurus foetus vitalis, when procured for just motives. Pius IX abolished the old distinction between foetus animatus et inanimatus. It is the procuratio abortus, moreover, that is punished, that is, per se sive per alias interpositas personas — studiose or ex industria. The censure is, therefore, not incurred bv one who employed the means without the effect resulting. Compare Heiner, a. a. O. S. 243 ff. ; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 109; Theol. Mor. Lib. TIT. n. 192; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. T. Lib. IF. Tract. IT. n. 840 ss. ; P. II. Lib. II. Tract, I. n. 970. 340 THE MINISTER OP THE SACRAMENT have not obtained permission of the Pope in the prescribed form. 4. Those who omit to denounce a soliciting confessor (§ 45). False denunciation constitutes a Papal reservation without censure. To these excommunications are added Suspensions and Inter dicts : — The Suspensions latce sententice simply reserved to the Pope, refer to Ordination which takes place by infraction of definite ecclesiastical regulations, and to religious who are expelled from their Orders. The Interdicts latce sententice affect universities, colleges, and chapters, whatever name they may bear, who appeal to a future general Council from the regulations or orders of the ruling Pope of the time, or who knowingly cause religious service to be held in interdicted places, as also those who admit persons excommunicated by name to religious service, to the holy Sacraments, or to burial with Church service, and that till the ecclesiastical Superior whose orders have been disregarded has received satisfaction. 44. Absolution of Reserved Sins. I. All those who can reserve sins may, of their ordinary power (ordinaria potestate), also absolve from them; therefore : (1) those who have reserved, (2) their successors in the same office, and (3) their Superiors. With delegated authority (potestate delegata) those can absolve who have received a special faculty from the person reserving, or his successor or Superior, and that only within the limits com prised in the power conferred. II. The bishops and their delegates can, according to common law, absolve (1) all penitents from the secret Papal reserves, with the exception of those which are, speciali modo, reserved ABSOLUTION OF RESERVED SINS 341 to the Pope ; m and (2) according to the general teaching of theologians, which is based upon the ecclesiastical law itself, those penitents who are prevented from going to the Pope, from all Papal reserves, secret or public.132 According to the general interpretation of the Council of Trent, and general custom, the bishop can transfer to another, by free choice (vicarius ad id specialiter deputandus), his powers of absolving from the Papal reserves under the specified condi tions. Some bishops, especially those in distant parts, not infrequently receive, through the quinquennial or triennial fac ulties, greater powers over cases which are, speciali modo, re served to the Pope. But whether they can also transfer these powers and how, — whether generally or only in separate cases, - must be gathered from the document by which these privi leges are conferred. Formerly Regulars could, by virtue of a perpetual privilege, absolve from all cases reserved, ordinario modo, to the Pope; this privilege has been withdrawn by the constitution " Apos- toliccB Sedis." 133 III. If a priest who is not empowered to absolve from reserved cases hears a reserved sin in the confessional, he must, as a rule, refer the penitent to the Superior, or to another priest delegated by him. But if the confession must of necessity be made just at that time, and if there is any obstacle in the way of going to another, the unauthorized confessor can absolve directly from the non-reserved, and, consequently, indirectly from the reserved 131 Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. de ref. cp. 6, "Liceat" and the Constit. Apos- tolicse Sedis Pii IX. 18-2 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VII. n. 84. Corpus jur. can. cp. " Eos qui " de sent. excomm. in 60. Whether bishops and others possess still greater powers, is to be gathered from the special faculties which the Apostolic See may have granted them. 133 Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. IT. De Reservat. cas. n. 772 ss. ; Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 411, ad IT. Concerning the privilege of the Mendicants as regards the absolution from the Casus Episcopal., and from the Casus qui Episcopis tantum a jure reservatur, see Ballerini, 1. c. 342 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT sins. But the penitent must confess, in addition to reserved sins, others which are not reserved, or confess again a sin al ready confessed, in order that the materia Sacramenti may not be wanting. It is, however, afterwards the duty of the penitent - if it is possible to him — to confess the reserved sin to the Superior, or to a priest designated by him, or, as the case may be, to the same confessor after the latter has received power to absolve from the sin in question, in order that he may be directly absolved from the reserved sins.134 134 Formerly, in accordance with the prescription of the canon law, the teaching universally held was that (c<) one who is prevented during a very long time, or always (five years or longer) from going to the Superior or his delegate, is absolved by a subordinate priest without any further obligation, and (//) one who is prevented for a long time (from six months to five years) is absolved, with the duty of presenting himself before the Supe rior when the obstacle is removed, while one who is prevented only for a short time may not be absolved from reserved sins ; but if necessity urges hie et nunc, absolution for the non-reserved sins can be given him, so that the reserved sins may be indirectly blotted out, the obligation of ob taining absolution from the reservation or censure from the Superior or dele gated priest remaining in force. This theory was based upon the assumption that he who was not able to appear before the Pope was not bound to employ any other means of communication (a letter, for example) unless this were expressly prescribed by the legislator. Moreover, on July 8, 1860, in an swer to the question : Are penitents who are prevented from going to Rome in person bound to seek absolution from reserved cases at least by letter or through the agency of another? the S. C. Officii replied that the decision of approved authorities, especially of St. Alphonsus of Liguori, should be ad hered to. Now the latter teaches (Lib. VII. n. 89) as sententia probabilior et communis, that one is not bound to this. On June 23, 1886, another line of conduct in this matter was prescribed by the S. Ofncium. The questions there put were : 1. May one positively adopt and act upon the teaching that the absolution from reserved sins and censures, also from those speciali modo reserved to the Pope, devolves upon the bishop, or upon any approved priest, when the penitent finds himself unable to go to the Pope? 2. If the answer to this question be in the negative, is one obliged to communicate by letter with the Prefect of the Penitentiary with regard to all cases reserved to the Pope, if the bishop has not a special Indult (the hour of death ex- cepted), in order to receive the faculty to absolve? To these questions the above-named Congregation returned the following answer sanctioned and confirmed by the Pope (30 June, 1886) : Ad I. With regard to the practice ABSOLUTION OF RESERVED SINS 343 But the confessor can also apply to the Superior and from him obtain powers for this special case to absolve the penitent from the reserved sin; this must, of course, be done with the most careful and strict observance of the secrecy of the confessional. Indeed, it is highly to be recommended in our days that the confessor should not refer the penitent to the Superior or to another priest with the requisite powers, but should rather him self procure from the Superior the necessary powers to absolve the penitent, even when the latter has no long or difficult journey to make in order to reach the Superior. For, if the peni tent goes himself, the duty of confessing his sins again is incum bent upon him, and to confess such a sin again requires from most penitents great self-command : and there would be fear of his of the Sacred Penitentiary, especially since the appearance of the apostolical constitution of Pius IX which begins with the words " Apostolicce Sedi ," Negative. Ad II. Affirmative: but in the really more urgent cases in which the absolution cannot be deferred without danger of great scandal or dis grace, as to which the confessor is answerable to his own conscience, the absolution can be administered, injunctis de jure jungendis, also from the censure speciali modo reserved to the Pope; under pain, however, of " reinci- dence " in the same censures (that is, under pain of again incurring the cen sures) if the person absolved does not, at least within a month, and through the confessor, apply to the Holy See. (Linzer Theolog. prakt. Quartalschrift, 1887, S. 380. See Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 410; Miiller, 1. c. § 145; Bucceroni, Enchirid. Morale et Supplementum. Compendio Theol. Mor.; Gury-Ballerini, Commeiitar. IV. p. 224 ss.; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. n. 0(34, Nota p. 356; Aertnys, 1. c. De Censuris, n. 27.) On this Lehmkuhl remarks : " The rule laid down by the Apostolic See is clear. It does not distinguish between reserved cases with censure and without censure, and to follow it is now everywhere allowed, without waiting for a further promul gation, in all Papal reserved cases ; indeed it seems to be becoming a general rule." (L. c. n. 413.) Ballerini adds the remark : Ergo (1) urgente ratio- nabili causa, quilibet confessarlus absolvit a censura, censurce autem absolutio non est nisi directa : cessante autem censura ccssat reservatio peccati, a quo proinde Confessarius directe absolvit. Absolutio proinde, quce in casibus urgentibus di- ferri non posse dicitur, est absolutio directa. Jam vero vides (2) lieic de absolu- tione indirecta a peccatis reservatis, quia in casibus urgentioribus succurri potest necessitate posnitentis ne verbumquidem fieri : Nimirum cum necessitate poenitentis succurrendum est, absolutionem directam a reservatis dandain esse et hunc esse Ecclesice sensum supposuerunt Patres. 344 THE MINISTER OF THE 8 AC RAM EN T changing his mind and not going to the Superior at all. Let the confessor, therefore, regard it as a duty of charity,135 which in most cases he must undertake for his penitent, to obtain from the lawful Superior the necessary power to absolve from the sin or censure confessed to him. But if it is a question of Papal reserves, and if the confessor, in a case of really urgent necessity, has given absolution, he must, in the name of the person ab solved, apply by letter to Rome, in order that the matter may be finally set in order. If the Superior refuses " unjustly" to grant the faculties for a reserved sin, such refusal is unlawful; indeed, he sins if, without any valid reason, he makes difficulties about imparting the faculty, and when great detriment to the subject is to be feared from the refusal, he sins against charity and justice. But if the penitent could without difficulty con fess to a delegated priest, and if there were lawful ground 136 for obliging the subject to confess to the Superior, the Superior could without doing wrong refuse the faculty. As a general rule it is to be observed : that the confessor who seeks faculties for the absolution of reserved cases, and the Superior who imparts them, should be guided only by consideration for the greater welfare of the soul of the penitent; all vain, unworthy motives should be out of question.137 In case of refusal of faculties for absolving, another confessor cannot directly absolve from the reserved sin.138 In requesting power to absolve from reserved sins, the name of the penitent, his character, position, or parentage must not be mentioned, and everything must be avoided that might be tray him. Without naming the person the reserved sin is indi- 135 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 584, Praxis Confess, n. 80. But see Ballerini on this point. Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. n. 664. 136 Lugo, 1. c. ; Ballerini, 1. c. n. 694. 137 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 586 ; H. A. n. 134. 188 Laymann,L. V. Tr. 6,c. 13; Lugo, Disp. 29, nn. 188 et 20, n. 141 ; Suarez, De Pcen. Disp. 30, s. 4, n. 8; Busenbaum, 1. c. n. 105; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. nn. 688, 689. ABSOLUTION OF RESERVED SINS 345 cated, or else the number only which the sin in question bears on the official list of reserved cases, followed by the request for faculties to absolve. Instead of this, one can, for the special case, request the power to absolve from all the reserved sins among which the one in question is contained. The instructions given by the Superior upon application are to be accurately followed; the document containing them is to be carefully sealed and after wards burnt. The priest who dispatches it, of course, gives his name and address, writing on the envelope the superscription "Pro foro interno" The envelope, with the request thus sealed, is inclosed in a second envelope, which must likewise be sealed, and this one is addressed to the Ordinary or vicar-general.139 In order that the object of the reservations may be attained, the Superior and his delegate must admonish the penitent with greater earnestness, impose a more severe penance than ordi nary upon him, and prescribe special remedies, in order that he may be preserved from relapse. To the above we add : — • 1. The difference between direct and simply indirect absolu tion is the following : he who is only indirectly absolved cannot as he pleases receive holy communion or say Mass (at least not when he remains under the censure), but only when, in individ ual cases, there is urgent necessity for the reception of commun ion or for saying Mass. 2. The duty of appearing before the Superior is undoubtedly binding under grave sin ; and when it is a question of a censure from which one has been absolved with the obligation of pre senting himself before the Superior the duty remains in force, under pain of falling again under the same censure. 3. When there is question of the duty of applying to the Pope, the Sacred Penitentiary, or the Cardinal Grand Penitentiary is understood, as this tribunal acts instead of the Pope in matters 139 Schneider, Manuale Sacerdotum contains formularies for the request. 346 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT of conscience, after the manner of a munus perpetuum, the Pope being neither accustomed to, nor able personally to, receive all petitions. 4. "Casus urgentiores, in quibus absolutio differri nequit absque periculo gravis scandali vel inf amice," are the following : (a) when the penitent cannot stay away from holy communion or, as the case may be, omit the celebration of holy Mass, without causing scandal, or without giving rise to grave suspicion against him self ; (6) when the duty of yearly confession is to be fulfilled, or when the penitent would otherwise remain a long time in grave sin.140 5. According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus,141 the follow ing persons are considered as prevented, or, as the case may be, exempted forever, from going to Rome : (a) those who are not able of their own right to undertake a journey to Rome; (6) those who are too poor to provide the requisites for such a journey; and (c) those who are in weak health, and unequal to the exertions of the journey. It is true traveling conditions are different now, and the obstacles which St. Alphonsus con sidered valid in his day can no longer be allowed to hold alto gether good, but it is easy to gather from what the holy Doctor142 says upon the point when an obstacle may still be regarded as legitimate. Accordingly, the following are to be considered as laboring under a perpetual impediment of appearing before this Superior for absolution, always with the understanding that their circumstances remain unchanged for a period of five years or more : (a) children who are still under paternal authority ; (b) members of Religious Orders (except when they have been guilty of some extraordinarily grave crime) ; (c) old people of more than sixty years; (d) those who are in the position of servants or in similar situations ; (e) poor persons, who are not accustomed to gain their maintenance by begging; (/) pris- i*° S. Alph. 1. c. n. 584. *« Lib. VII. n. 88. 142 Cf. Mazzotta, De Poenit. Q. 3, c. 3, § 1. ABSOLUTION OF RESERVED SIJVS 347 oners; (g) sick persons and weak persons; (h) those who hold a public office, or provide for a family, and cannot be replaced by a substitute; (i) women, except those who, in a special case, have incurred a reserved censure, as, for instance, the violation of the inclosure, in which case application by letter must always be made to the Pope; (k) those not of age; and, finally, (7) all those who cannot undertake this journey without great moral or bodily harm, either to themselves or to those belonging to them. The questions as to whether one who has committed reserved sins must, in the absence of an authorized confessor, confess to a simple one, in the case of his having to say Mass or communicate, or whether it suffices to elicit contrition, — and whether the penitent who has committed both reserved and un reserved sins must accuse himself in the confessional of the re served sins as well, — formerly discussed by theologians, are solved by present usage. As the penitent under existing legis lation can be directly absolved from censures and sins (though with the duty of applying to the Roman tribunal), the rule now is that the penitent must immediately confess all his sins.143 IV. In the hour of death every reservation ceases, and any confessor may then administer absolution. And a simple, that is, unauthorized, confessor, can absolve a penitent in articulo mortis from reserved sins even when the Superior is present or is easily accessible, since the Council of Trent has expressly de clared that in articulo mortis there is no reservation. Moreover, no obligation must be imposed upon the dying person in case of his restoration to health, unless perhaps he should owe to some other person a debt of satisfaction or restitution. If, however, it is a question of reserved censures, the confessor who possesses no power to absolve from these must impose the duty, in case of recovery, of appearing before the Superior; in this case it 143 See Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. n. 667 ss. ; S. Alph. Lib. VI, n. 265, 348 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT would, of course, be advisable to set the matter in order at once with the Superior if he be present or easily accessible. With regard to the absolution of reserved cases the following questions remain to be discussed : - 1. Is the reservation of sins removed by an invalid absolu tion which the Superior, or a priest authorized by him, has administered? In answering this question theologians set up the following distinctions : (a) If the absolution was invalid without fault on the part of the penitent, and if the latter con fessed all his reserved sins, the reservation is removed according to the usual, and intrinsically well-founded, opinion of theolo gians: in this case the penitent has fulfilled the object of the reservation if not that of the Sacrament, by submitting the re served sins to the judgment of the Superior, or, as the case may be, of the authorized priest. (6) And even if the confession were sacrilegious, the reservation is, according to the not im probable teaching of many theologians, removed, and that on the ground just alleged. This teaching, however, cannot be extended to the confessor who absolves from reserved sins vir- tute jubilcci, as, at the time of a Jubilee indulgence, the confessor does not possess the faculty to absolve all penitents from reserved cases, but only the vere pcenitentes, who wish to gain the Jubilee indulgence ; but those who, of their own fault, make the confession invalid, are certainly not of that class. 2. When the penitent through forgetfulness has omitted to confess a reserved sin, the reservation is removed, according to an opinion which St. Alphonsus, following Lugo, characterized as the most common among theologians and as probable, so that any confessor could, afterwards, directly absolve from these re served sins, and this is presumed to be the intention of the Supe rior as regards the properly disposed penitent. On the other hand, not a few theologians, among them Suarez,144 teach that 144 Disp. 31, Sect. 4, n. 14, et seq. and n. 16. ABSOLUTION OF RESERVED SINS 349 in the above case the reservation is not removed, and St. Alphonsus designates this opinion as the more probable, and for the very strong reason that (as he says) a reservation is only removed by being submitted to the judgment of the Superior, in order that the object of the reservation may be attained. This latter opinion certainly deserves the preference in view of the argument alleged; but the following cases are excepted: (1) when one may assume from any positive sign that the Supe rior wished to remove the reservation; (2) when the penitent went to the Superior or to an authorized priest for the purpose of being absolved from all reserved sins, and declared this wish to the confessor; (3) when a privilege was granted in favor of the penitent, such as either expires with an official act, or is limited to a definite period, as, for example, at Jubilee time. To these Suarez adds a fourth exception — when (4) the reser vation refers only to the censure, " because in order to absolve from a censure, it is not necessary per se et directe, to know the matter in question accurately in detail, but the general inten tion of absolving from all sins, reserved included, to the extent of the confessor's power and the penitent's necessity is sufficient for the purpose.145 But if the penitent has, through his own fault, failed to confess the reserved sin, the reservation is cer tainly not removed, as one cannot here assume that the Superior annuls it.146 3. It is not allowed to absolve a penitent only from the reserved sins and for the rest to send him to another con fessor. Nothing can justify such a proceeding.147 4. If a penitent has confessed a sin as to the reservation of which a doubt exists, the latter is directly absolved by the abso- 145 Suarez, 1. c. j Gury, Ed. Ratisb. II. n. 581, Notae ; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 244, Q. II. 146 Cf. Opus Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 753 ss.; Gury-Ballerini, II. n. 581, Q. 10, et Vindicise Alphons. pp. 572-578. 147 Cf. Prop. 59 damn, ab Innoc. XI; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 595; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 743. 350 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT lution administered by a simple confessor. This need not be afterwards confessed if it should prove that the sin was undoubt edly reserved.148 5. A confessor has applied for powers to absolve the penitent from reserved sins; in the meantime, however, after these pow ers have been granted, and before they have been exercised, the penitent has again committed the reserved sin or committed it several times, or committed other reserved sins — do the powers applied for suffice in order to be able to absolve ? If the powers are conferred in a general way, say in the following or a similar manner : " Facultatem tibi concedimus poenitentem hac vice absol- vendi a reservatis," the confessor can, according to a very prob able and general opinion, absolve the penitent from all reserved sins committed before and after; only the interval between the powers conferred and the new reserved sins incurred must be no longer than one month, and the powers must not have been conferred on account of a festival which is already past. If, however, the faculties have been conferred for a definite class of reserved sins only without specifying the number, these fac ulties suffice to absolve the penitent (but only to absolve him once) from all cases of this kind.149 i« S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 600, Q. 2 ; Gury, II. n. 581, Q. II. 149 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 601 ; Scavini, Tract. X. Aduotationes, 236. Cf. Bucceroni, Jan. Commentarii De Casibus reservatis, Romas, 1889. CHAPTER III ABUSE OF POWER BY THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT AN exalted, indeed a divine, power has God conferred upon priests, in authorizing them, as judges of souls in His stead, to remit or to retain sins. This power has been conferred upon them for the salvation and welfare of souls. It is, therefore, greatly to be regretted that we must here speak of an abuse of this power. The Church has, alas ! found herself obliged to adopt severe measures against this abuse, in order to prevent it, but in her severity she shows her zeal for the faithful, and proves herself the faithful dispenser of the Mysteries of Christ. There are three ways in which the priest may abuse his power in the Sacrament of Penance. 45. Inquiring after the Name of the Accomplice in Sin. In a former paragraph (§ 27) we have laid down that it may be permissible to reveal indirectly the accomplice of the sin (complex peccati) in so far as the complete confession of one's own sin may render this avowal necessary, and that, accord ingly, the confessor is also allowed, in order to make the peni tent's confession entire, to ask the circumstances which alter the nature of the sin, or to put questions which are necessary in order to provide the better for the penitent's spiritual wel fare, questions through which the complex peccati might also become known to the confessor. Here we treat of a totally different case, viz. the illicit attempt of detecting the name of the complex peccati without necessity, and of demanding its revelation under threat of refusing absolution. 351 352 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT On this point Benedict XIV issued several constitutions150 which Pius IX confirmed in his Constitution " Apostolicce Sedis" (see § 43, p. 326). The motives of the legislation are stated thus: many confessors, led astray by false zeal, have intro duced a perverse and pernicious practice in hearing the confes sions of the faithful . . . that when penitents come to them who had an accomplice in their sin, they ask these penitents indiscriminately for the name of the accomplice. Nor do they do this in a kindly manner, by advice ; but they force and com pel them to reveal the name by threats of refusing absolution; indeed, not content with this, they even go so far as to demand from their penitents that they should mention the dwell ing-place of the accomplice. This absolutely intolerable impru dence they justify by the pretext of care for the amendment of the accomplice, and do not hesitate to defend it by certain opinions borrowed from theologians, whereas they only falsely apply true and sound teachings to their own and their penitent's ruin, and, moreover, are guilty before God, the eternal Judge, of many and great evils which follow from their work, as they should easily have apprehended. Nor could malicious" talk and scandal fail to arise from this conduct, nor any other result be expected than that not only the dispensers of the Sacrament, but the sacred Ministry itself, become odious, and the faithful perplexed. In the second constitution the Pope decrees : - 1. The excommunication latce sentential, which is reserved to the Pope, against all who in future presume to teach that this practice is allowed, and against all who orally or in writing dare to defend it, or attack, or presumptuously expound otherwise, 150 In the first constitution addressed ad Episcopos Lusitanice, the Pope de scribes and condemns the crime of inquiring after the name of the complex ; in the second, addressed to the same bishops, he decrees the punishment for the transgressors of the command, and prescribes the Ordo procedendi against them ; in the third constitution he extends the two former decrees to the whole Church. INQUIRING AFTER NAME OF ACCOMPLICE IN SIN 353 or distort, what was said against this practice in the first Brief. 2. The suspension from hearing confessions ferendce sentential, and other heavy penalties against those who, after the manner of the above-described and condemned practice, dare to ask peni tents the name of the complex peccati, or the dwelling-place, or other circumstances imparting a closer or more individual des ignation of this complex, threatening at the same time the refusal of the sacramental absolution to the penitent who refuses to give information on these points. 3. The Sacred Office was advised rigorously to proceed against those who taught that this practice was allowed, de fended it, etc. (as above indicated), and against the confessors who applied this pernicious teaching, when their conduct excited suspicion that they adhered to the false doctrine. The Pope, therefore, laid upon all (except the penitents in propria causa) who knew that a confessor was guilty of this teaching, or of prac tices which excited suspicion — an obligation of bringing the mat ter before the notice of the Sacred Office within a month (under pain of excommunication, which is now, however, removed).151 The Constitutions of Benedict XIV, however, as is clear from the foregoing, are leveled against the practice of asking peni tents, passim, indiscriminately, who have an accomplice in their sin, for the name of the accomplice. The prohibition is, there fore, not an absolute one, for there may be circumstances in which it is allowed to demand from the penitent even under threat of withholding absolution, the naming of the partner in sin. This is the case when the confessor holds at the same time another office, such as that of a Superior, by virtue of which he can oblige the penitent to reveal to him the authors and accom plices of the sin, in order to punish them as pernicious to the general weal. If this is the case, the confessor does not ask for 151 Cf. Gury-Ballerini, II. n. 500, Notse. 354 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT the name of the accomplice as confessor but as Superior, and as Superior he rightfully demands to know who the accomplice is. When, again, the confessor sees that by the concealment of the partner in guilt there would arise grave evil which the peni tent is bound to prevent, the latter must, out of regard for the general welfare, make known the accomplice in his sin to the proper person; but if the confessor is at once convinced that the penitent cannot himself communicate it directly to the Su perior, and also that he has no other more suitable person through whom he could do so than the confessor himself, the penitent is bound to accept this sole remaining expedient, and inform the confessor of the accomplice, and the confessor may force him to do so under pain of withholding absolution; for, if the peni tent were not willing to obey, he would not be worthy to receive absolution. " However," Lugo warns us, "the confessor must proceed in this matter with great caution, that scandal may not arise in making use of information obtained in the confessional. It is, therefore, better to request the penitent to speak to him upon the subject outside the confessional." Indeed, it is neces sary to require that the information should not be given him under the seal of the confessional.152 46. The Absolution of the Complex in Peccato Turpi. To preserve the sanctity of the institution of Penance, to pro tect the Sacraments from contempt, and save souls from ruin, the Church has laid down the following very salutary regulations:153 152 Lugo, Disput. 16, nn. 432 sq. ; Ballerini, Not. ad Gury, II. n. 502 ; Lehm- kuhl, 1. c. n. 340 ; Aertnys, 1. c. 248, Q, T and II. Although St. Alphonsus (Lib. VI. n. 492) admits that the penitent is sometimes obliged to make known the complex in order to avert a great evil, yet he dares not maintain, in view of the strict prohibition of the Pope, that the confessor is ever allowed to ask the name of the complex. He has not sufficiently considered the word passim — and the other words, doctrinas veras et sanas male appli- cando — in the constitution of Benedict. 153 Constit. Benedict! XIV, " Sacramentum Poenit.," 1 June, 1741, et Const. " Apostolic! nmneris," 8 Feb., 1745; Constit. Pii IX, " Apostolicse Sedis," 12 ABSOLUTION OF THE COMPLEX IN PECCATO TUEPI 355 I. No priest, whether secular or regular, possesses jurisdiction over his complex in peccato turpi against the sixth commandment, till another confessor has absolved the complex from this sin. According to this, jurisdiction is withdrawn from the confessor only in respect to the sin against the sixth commandment which he himself has committed with the penitent.154 Nevertheless, this withdrawal of jurisdiction has also the effect that he cannot validly absolve from other mortal sins which the penitent (complex) confessed at the same time with that sin. For the Pope has declared absolutely invalid and void the absolution administered by a priest who possesses no jurisdiction over such a sin and such a penitent.155 But after the sin of the complex has been remitted by another priest, the jurisdiction of the unhappy priest over this penitent revives, even with re spect to this directly remitted sin. The Sacerdos complex could, therefore, afterwards absolve his complex from sins which the latter had subsequently committed — not with him. Such a proceeding is, however, to be discouraged, for the sense of shame is thereby lost, the reverence due to the Sacrament dies away, and the danger of relapse, or, at least, of great temptation, is imminent. Such unhappy penitents must, therefore, be ad monished never more to confess to the confessarius complex.159 But what is the confessarius complex to do if the penitent again confesses that sin in which the confessor has been complex, although it has already been remitted by another confessor? If he only confessed this sin, the case would be just as if a peni tent confessed a reserved sin only to a priest not empowered .for reserved sins; the latter could not absolve, because there Oct., 1860. Cf. Bucceroni, Jan. Commentarius in Constitutionem Benedict! XIV, "Sacram. Pcenit.," Romse, 1888; Pars altera, pp. 106-141. 154 Cf. Declar. S. Poenitent. 16 May, 1877. 155 Cf. Constit. " Sacramentum PcenitentiaB," 1 June, 1741, Benedicti XIV. 156 St. Thomas, Supplern. Q. 20, Art. 2, ad 1 ; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 555. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Notse ad 587 ; Gury, Edit. Ratisb. Notse ad n. 587 ; Aertnys, 1. c. n. 249. 356 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT would be (for him) no proper materia sacramenti.157 But if the penitent (complex) confessed other sins (in addition to that in which the confessor had been his complex) absolution could be given,158 since a priest who is not authorized for reserved sins can administer absolution when reserved and unreserved sins have been confessed. But then the absolution is, both by the nature of the case and the intention of the person absolving, applied to the unreserved sins only. There is, moreover, a great difference between the two cases, — the confession of the sin in which the confessor was an accomplice, and the confession of reserved and unreserved sins, — namely, that to absolve a penitent who has confessed reserved and unreserved sins, a causa ab integritate confessionis excusans must be present, whereas no such reason is here necessary in order to submit again to the power of the keys a sin already remitted.159 In some dioceses it was de jure particulari forbidden that a priest should ever hear the confession of a complex, saltern copula consummata. This prohibition, however, the S. Congr. Concil. repeatedly rejected, and when the resolutions of a synod con taining such a prohibition were submitted to it the Congrega tion returned the answer : Tale decretum deleatur, although the defenders of the decree adduced much in its justification, and emphatically denied the danger of scandal which many main tained would easily arise in little places. Thus, most wisely did the Congregation curb undue zeal.160 But here another and much more difficult question forces itself upon us: What is to be done, si alicubi mulier, quce misere in ejusmodi peccatum cum sacerdole lapsa fuerit, nullum alium, quo- 157 Cum jurisdictionem in illud crimen nullam sacerdos complex habeat. Bal- lerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. 158 Non haMta ratione peccati illius (in quo complex fuit) cujus confessio ut quid impertinent consideranda erit. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. De absolut. complicis. n. 648. 159 Ballerini, Not?e ad Gury, 1. c. 160 Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. IT. De absol. coinpl. n. 654. ABSOLUTION OF THE COMPLEX IN PECCATO TUEPI 357 cum peccatum illud sacramentaliter confiteatur, sacerdotem ibi habeat, but the circumstances of the person and of the place, etc., are such that she cannot go elsewhere to confess to another con fessor, and there is no hope of her being able to confess to another priest at the place in question (at a mission, for example). Bal- lerini declares that it was not the intention of Benedict XIV, when he gave his Constitution, that such persons, in the above circumstances, should be deprived of the Sacraments of the Church their whole life, till in the hour of their death they could at last be absolved a sacerdote peccati complice. And might not such a person die suddenly without illness preceding? What then is she to do when the time for the yearly confession and Easter communion has come ? May we say that she can always receive holy communion with contritio alone, indeed, that she must receive it ? And what if scandal arises among the people, and the woman loses her good reputation by its becoming known that she has not received holy communion for several years? If any one objects that, in this extremity, such a peni tent might be proceeded with exactly as if she had a reserved sin to confess, and, therefore, omitting that sin (over which the confessor has no jurisdiction), the other sins could be submitted to absolution, by which that sin also would be indirectly re mitted, we ask : How and when will this sin be finally submitted to the power of the keys ? Great difficulties beset this question, and we dare not make a decision supported only by our own judgment. Two things are, however, clear enough : one is that when Benedict XIV withdrew from the confessario criminis complici the jurisdiction to administer absolution to the complex ab eodem crimine, he certainly removed the occasion of very great scandal, but he by no means wished to close to the sinner the way of reconciliation opened by Christ to him and to all the faithful; indeed, it was precisely in order that this reconciliation might be the more certainly and better accomplished by the agency 358 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT of another priest, that he wished to make the confessarius crimi- nis complex incapable of accomplishing it. He, therefore, pre supposed, what generally is the case, that other priests would not be wanting, from whom the penitent, by confession and sacramental absolution, might obtain remission of her sin. It has never been the intention and practice of the Church, by restrict ing jurisdiction for the remission of certain sins and reserving absolution for them, to set aside the ordinary means of forgive ness, the sacramental confession of sin, and to supply for this by perfect contrition or indirect remission. However ample these extraordinary means for obtaining eternal salvation may be, yet the Church does not allow that the ordinary dispensation set up by Christ for our welfare should be disregarded. The Church, therefore, removed all restrictions upon absolution for the hour of death, so that all priests can absolve every penitent from all sins and censures. We are not, however, to suppose that the Church has made this provision solely for the moment and the danger of death; she makes other exceptions.161 It is, therefore, very far from the intention and the custom of the Church so to limit the jurisdiction necessary to the adminis tration of the Sacrament of Confession that it remains restricted even when a sinner, during a long time, and still less if during his whole lifetime, is unable to have access to a priest whose power is not limited. And who, out of fear of an abuse, would forbid a priest the dispensing of a Sacrament, or one of the faith ful the reception of a Sacrament, when the reception of such Sacrament appears necessary? When, therefore, necessity de mands the reception of the Sacrament, it is not to be refused by the priest nor to be neglected by the faithful. If abuse takes place, let the blame fall upon those who would not make good use of the benefit.162 lf>1 Cf. C. Eos qui 22, De Sentent. Excomm. in VI; C. Ea noscitur 13, I)e Sent. Excomm., et C. Quamvis 58, eod. tit. 162 Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 055. ABSOLUTION OF THE COMPLEX IN PECCATO TUEPI 359 A pari Ballerini teaches that the confessarius complex may administer absolution from the crimen, in quo ipse complex fuit, to the penitent who has no other confessor, and who, if he were not absolved by the confessarius complex, would be obliged to abstain for a long time from holy communion with possible scandal to others, and this teaching is in the Commentaries of the Acta S. Sedis extended to other extraordinary cases, when, during a long time, no opportunity presents itself to the persona complex of confessing without evident danger of sacrilege, and when, at the same time, evident danger of disgrace or even of suspicion arises from the long abstention from the holy Sacra ments.163 II. To incur this penalty it is necessary : — 1. That the sin in which the confessor was an accomplice should be a mortal sin, both internally and in the external act. Purely internal mortal sins, and those not completed externally, are, therefore, excluded; 2. That both confessor and penitent should have sinned and have been guilty of the peccatum turpe; 3. That the two preceding conditions should be certainly fulfilled; hence the sin must certainly have been mortal inter nally and externally, and on the part of both the confessor and the penitent, on the principle that odia restringenda sunt.™ Accordingly, it is indifferent if the complex be a person of the male or female sex. Benedict XIV expressly says: "Qualem- cumque personam" ; moreover, it is not necessary that the sin should be completed, as the Constitution says generally and indefinitely: "a sin against the sixth commandment," and the object of the law is — occasiones non tantum copula? sed omnis turpitudinis a sanctitate tribunali pocnitentiw removere. Casum complicis ergo constituunt: tactus impudicus, osculum, amplexus, 163 Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. P. TI. Lib. II. Tr. 1. De Censuris, Sect. II. n. 937. 164 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 554. 360 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT colloquium uti et aspectus, dummodo complicitatem important ac tarn interne, turn externe sint graviter mali.165 But when one party has either not gravely sinned or only by an internal act, there is no casus complicis in question. III. The confessarius can absolve his complex, when the latter is in articulo mortis and when another priest, who may also be without faculties, cannot be called in without greater danger of defamation or of scandal, or when another priest is, indeed, present, but declines to hear the confession of the dying person. In the latter case this priest is regarded as absent. The sacerdos complex is, however, bound to take all care that no suspicion or scandal arises from the presence of another priest; he may, for example, upon some pretext or another, absent himself, having previously induced the dying person to send for another confessor. If he fail to do this, and so is under the necessity of administer ing absolution to the dying person, he sins gravely and incurs the penalty decreed; but the absolution administered by him, " etiam directa hujus peccati" would be valid, that the dying person might not be lost.166 All authors teach that a priest can also absolve his complex who is in articulo mortis, when the latter, without fault on the part of the confessarius complex, refuses to confess to another priest. This penitent, however, must be in bona fide as regards the com mandment of the Church. Here the eternal salvation of the poor 165 S. Alph. 1. c. Cf. Declar. S. C. Inq. 28 May, 1873, in Acta S. Sed. Vol. 10, append, p. 345. Aertnys, 1. c. n. 249. Some wrongly exclude the sermones impudici ; the most that can be urged for such a view is that there might be a doubt, num. fuerit peccatum mortale ex utraque parte, and, on account of such a doubt, the causa complicitatis which the law requires may the more easily be absent. Cf. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 935. 166 This results from the tenor of the Bulls " Sacrament. Poenitent." of Benedict XIV and " Apostolicae Sedis " of Pius IX. A simple, non-ap proved priest is, per se, to be preferred to the sacerdos complex (if no defama tion arises), but a sacerdos publice suspensus, excommunicatus, is not to be preferred, as it is not becoming to call such a one to the dying person, and in this case it will scarcely be possible to avoid suspicion. ABSOLUTION OF THE COMPLEX IN PECCATO TURPI 361 penitent is in question, and frequently scandal would result if the priest should refuse to hear the confession of the dying person.167 IV. The confessor who, apart from the specified cases of ne cessity, absolves his complex in peccato turpi from this peccatum turpe incurs, ipso facto, the excommunication specially reserved to the Pope.168 If a priest absolves his complex ex ignorantia or inadvertentia, and thus remains free from grave sin, he does not incur the censure. But it is doubtful whether the absolution administered is valid. The sententia communis rejects the abso lution as invalid, since the Pope has only excepted the absolu tion administered in the hour of death; but several later theologians hold the absolution to be valid, because the Pope, as they point out, speaks only of the sacerdos sacrilegus, who know ingly and intentionally absolves his complex.169 Further, a priest does not incur the excommunication who hears the confession of his complex, but does not absolve him, seeing that, according to the Constitution of Pius IX, only the sacerdotes absolventes fall under the excommunication. If, how ever, the confessor pretends to absolve his complex (fingere absolutionem) while, in reality, he does not absolve him, — for instance, saying some prayer in place of the usual form of abso lution, — he incurs excommunication. So the S. C. Inq. declared on December 10, 1883, with the approbation of Leo XIII.170 167 Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. 1. c. cp. II. De absolut. compl. n. 652 ss. 168 Cf . Constitutio Benedict! XIV, " Sacrament. Poenit." and Pii IX, " Apostolicae Sedis " (see § 43, p. 326) . 169 Cf. Berardi, Praxis conf. n. 1076. 170 This question was before decided in the same sense by the S. Pcenit. 9 Jul., 1751, etMart., 1878. Cf. Linzer Theol. Quartalschrift, 1882, p. 389. Revue theol. 1884, p. 363. St. Alphonsus had already (Lib. VI. n. 556) maintained, eum, qui fincjat absolutionem, non incurrere censuram, deducing this from the words of the Constitution of Benedict XIV, and this inter pretation of the Pope's words was probable; this opinion of the sainted teacher seems still to coincide with the words of the Bull of Pius IX, which reads Absolventes. But the Sacred Penitentiary has declared otherwise. The latter evidently here takes the word absolventes in the wider sense. Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 656. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 936, Nota. 362 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT If the penitent confesses to the sacerdos complex and conceals the sin against the sixth commandment, which the confessor has committed with him, and the confessor absolves him, the latter does not incur the excommunication, according to a dec laration of the S. Pcenitent. on May 16, 1887. " For this penalty falls only on the priest who absolves his complex from that peccatum turpe in which the priest has been the complex of the penitent." Nevertheless, according to the declaration of the Penitentiary, the confessor of the priest who has absolved his complex (even when he has not absolved him from the peccatum complicitatis) is bound to remind him with the greatest zeal that he has been guilty of a very grave sin, and an abominable abuse of the Sacrament of Confession, and he may only absolve this priest after exhorting him in the most forcible manner to relin quish his office as confessor, and after imposing on him the obli gation of refraining from hearing the confessions of his complex in the future; and that if the persona complex appears in the confessional again, he should exhort this person to accuse him self to another confessor in a valid confession both of the peccatum complicitatis and of the sins invalidly confessed. The conces sion of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV. cap. 6, "Liceat") does not empower a bishop to absolve a priest who has absolved his complex. The Sacred Penitentiary has expressly declared this on July 18, 1860, and it results from the Constitution " Apostolicce Sedis," in which all the casus papales reserved speciali modo to the Pope are excepted from the powers granted to bishops in the cap. " Liceat."171 But if, "in casibus urgentioribus," absolution cannot be deferred without danger of great scandal and disgrace, a bishop, or an other priest, can administer absolution injunctis de jure injun- gendis on the confessor who has unlawfully absolved his complex 171 Cf. Decret. S. C. Inq. 27 June, 1866, and the Instructio S. C. Inq. 20 Feb., 1867. (Gury, Cas. Conscient. T. 2, n. 647.) Revue des sciences eccles. Vol. 18, p. 359. ABSOLUTION OF THE COMPLEX IN PECCATO TURPI 363 in peccato turpi, but under penalty of " reincidence " if within the space of a month, the absolved priest has not recourse by letter, and through the confessor, to the Holy See.172 If a confessor in such a case is obliged to apply to the Holy See, he must address his petition to the Sacred Penitentiary. In this petition he must adopt a fictitious name, set forth the case concisely and clearly, with all the circumstances appertain ing to the matter, as : quot personas complices et quoties Sacerdos absolvere attentaverit ; an unam vel plures irregularitates con- traxerit ex violatione censurcc per celebrationem missce vel exer- citium solemne Ordinis Sacri; an alias jam acceperit Rescriptum gratice pro absolutione ab hujusmodi crimine.173 172 S. C. Inquis. 30 June, 1886, the decision which Leo XIII approved and confirmed. Cf. Revue theolog. 1886, p. 378. 173 The Sacred Penitentiary is accustomed to add a few clauses to its Rescript, and it will be useful to explain them briefly: 1. Before the confessarius delegatus can carry out the Rescript, the occa sion of again sinning against the sixth commandment cum persona vel per- sonis complicibus must be removed. Hence the voluntary occasion (and there is generally such in this case) must be physically removed, and a nec essary occasion morally removed. See § 63. 2. The Confessarius complex must inform his complex, when he again comes to him to confess, of the invalidity of the former confessions and refer him to another confessor. 3. The duty of not again hearing the confessions of the persona complex in the future will be imposed upon the Confessarius complex, when this can be done without great scandal, and he would, therefore, sin gravely if he should disobey this command. According to the number and gravity of the cases the Penitentiary subjoins still severer clauses: (a) those who duas personas complices only once, or unam bis a peccato in re turpi absolvere atten- taverint the Sacred Penitentiary orders to give up their office as confessors. (b) But those qui duas aut plures personas sive unam ter aut pluries absolvere ausi fuerint, it commands to relinquish as soon as possible the office which they have so misused, and that within the time which is to be determined by the priest who administers the absolution, and which must not be pro longed beyond three months, if they are simple priests ; if they are parish priests, the period may be longer, but not beyond six months. And if within this time the priest is unable, for weighty reason, to give up his office, the delegated confessor must again address himself to the Sacred Penitentiary, and lay the whole matter before him ; in the meanwhile, how- 364 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT 47. Sollicitatio Proprii Poenitentis ad Turpia. The minister of the Sacrament of Penance is a man, and remains a man ; even when he is administering this Sacrament he is subject to the weaknesses of human nature, and hence he bears within him the inclination to evil and is exposed to the temptations of the devil; and it is there where he destroys the work of Satan that he must experience the hostility of the evil one more, perhaps, than elsewhere. In addition to this, the confessor holds such intimate intercourse with the penitent, and must, alas ! so often deal with dangerous matter ; he must lis ten to certain sins, investigate them and give them his attention in order to discharge his duty rightly. Thus may be explained the dreadful abuse of the Sacrament of Confession of which we now treat, — an abuse, however, which is very rare, — the Sol licitatio proprii pcenitentis ad turpia.174 There is question only of an abusus Sacramenti Pcenitentioc ad turpia, but not of an abusus aliorum Sacramentorum ad turpia} and also not of an abusus ejusdem Pcenitentice Sacramenti ad alia peccata, quamvis gravissima. Jam quceritur : — I. Quid intelligatur per turpia vel inhonesta, ad qua? fit sollici- tatio f II. Quo actu sollicitatio perficiatur? ever, the sacerdos complex may not hear the confessions cujuscunque persons complicis. The Sacred Penitentiary will, for weighty reasons, extend the period, and when, after a time, the unhappy priest seems to have amended, will allow him to continue to exercise the duties of a confessor. 4. The censures must be removed first, then the sins remitted, and finally the dispensation from the irregularity is given. Cf. Aertnys, 1. c. n. 250. 174 The Constitutions, " Cum sicut nuper," of Pius IV, " Dilecte fili," of Paul V, " Universi Dominici gregis," of Gregory XV, and in an especial manner, " Sacramentum pcenitentise," and " Apostolici muneris," of Bene dict XIV, cover this matter. Cf. Bucceroni, Jan. Commentar. Constit. Ben edicti XIV, "Sacrament. Pcenit." P. I. pp. 1-150. Romse, 1888. Ed, altera. SOLLICITATIO PROPRII POEN1TENTIS AD TUEPIA 365 III. Qualis nexus inter sollicitationem et Sacramentum Pceni- tenticc intervenire oporteat, ut r ever a et ex mente legislatoris sollici- tatio abusus Sacramenti sit ? Ad I. Per peccata turpia, ad quce -fit sollicitatio, intelliguntur omnes actus externi libidinosi sen actus luxuries, quo spectant etiam actus vel ex sua natura vel ex particulari dispositione com- plicis vel ex intentione operantis aliunde satis manijestata (v.g. signo, verbo) inductivi ad vehementem commotionem spirituum genitalium ; intelligantur ergo : quilibet tractatus turpis, sermo ob- scccnus vel actio obscana. Sollicitatio ex mente legislatoris non perpetratur actibus tantum venialiter inhonestis adeoque non ve- neriis (nam in his non est parvitas material). Excipe, si ex cir- cumstantiis certe conjiceretur, sacerdotem actu de se leviter malo (v.g. verbo blandiori) animum habuisse procedendi ad gravia.175 Confessarius consentiens tantum mulieri sollicitanti in confessione nullo modo eximitur a peccato sollicitationis, i.e. inhonesti tracta tus in confessionali, idque licet statim desierit de ilia turpi materia loqui, differendo illius complementum ad aliud tempus et non pro3- bendo absolutionem pcenitenti; item licet inductus metu consense- rit sollicitationi1™ et a fortiori, quando confessarius et po3nitens invicem se sollicitarunt, puta quando confessarius ad unam turpi- tudinis speciem sollicitatus ad aliam sollicitavit poenitentem. Juxta Decreta sollicitaret etiam confessarius, qui diceret pocnitenti: "Si swcularis essem, te uxorem ducerem" ; vel u Expecta me hodie domi tuw, quia tecum loqui cupio" et postea domi sollicitaret; vel " Hisce peccatis tuis pollutionem passus sum" ; item, si feminw petenti confessionem responderet in confessionali: " Nolo tuam audire confessionem, ne quid mihi contingat; quia amore tui cap- tus sum"; item "Totum me commoveri sentio ex affectu, quo te prosequor" ; vel " Domum tuam veniam et promitte mihi} te factu- rum esse quod voluero." 177 175 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. IV. n. 564, sub 3. 176 Cf. Decl. S. C. Inq. 11 Febr., 1601, dub. 2 et 9, et Instruct. 20 Febr., 1867, n. 2. i7' S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 704. 366 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT Ad II. Crimen sollicitationis ad turpia adest, si confessarius, qualiscunque sit, tarn scecularis quam regularis (vel etiam sacerdos car ens jurisdictione at hie in confessione) m sollicitat pcenitentem sive mar em sive feminam ad peccandum sive secum sive cum olio; nee refert, utrum ipsum pwnitentem sollicitet, an mediante pceni- tente aliam quampiam personam. Prceterea sollicitatio hujus- modi ex parte confessarii fieri potest vel immediate (v.g. verbis obsccenis) vel mediate, puta per chartam postmodum a pamitente legendam; 179 et habenda est completa, sive pcenitens reapse ad peccatum pertrahatur, sive resistat, dummodo ponatur medium ap- tum alliciendi ad actus inhonestos; nee refert, medium adhibitum in se malum sit an indifferens, dummodo ex circumstantiis postea cognoscatur, id ad sollicitandum adhibitum esse, puta, si confessa rius mulieri hoc animo intimet, ut expectet eum domi, vel earn eodem animo interroget, ubi habitet. Ad III. Ut vero sollicitatio ejusmodi sit abusus Sacramenti oportet, ut, modo a lege determinato, relatio aliqua intercedat inter ipsam et confessionem vel inter ipsam et locum ubi confessiones excipiuntur.180 (a) Relatio requisita ad confessionem adest, si sollicitatio fit: (1) in actu sacramentalis confessionis inccepta?, licet non perfec ts; vel (2) immediate ante confessionem; vel (3) immediate post confessionem, i.e. quando inter sollicitationem et confessionem nihil medial, ita ut nee confessarius nee pwnitens ad aliud negotium serio se divertant.131 178 Cf. Resp. S. C. Tnq. a. 1661 ad dub. 5, Instruct, a. 1867, sub 2. 179 Cf. Propos. 6 ab Alex. VII damn. 180 S. Alph. Lib. VI. mi. 676-680. 181 Illud immediate (ante vel post) aliqui rnoraliter intelligi volunt, ita ut, si physice tantum aliquid intermediat, sen intervallum adeo breve sit, ut pro nihilo debeat computari, confessarius adhuc vi harum clausularum sollici- tans dicendus, ergo denuntiandus sit. Communis sententia, quam sequitur St. Alph. (11. 677) illud stricte, i.e. physice accipit. Ex praxi tribunalis S. Officii non censetur confessarius sollicitasse immediate post confessionem, si sollicitatio post transactum integrum diem accidet, dummodo nullo modo pravum animum suurn in confessione indicaverit. Ballerini, Notse ad Gury, II. n. 590. Opus Theol. Mor. 1. c. Appendix De Sollicitatione, n. 1094 ss. SOLLWITATIO PROPRII POENITENTIS AD TURPIA 367 (4) Occasione confessionis (verce) vid. quando fit invitatio ad confessionem hie et nunc excipiendam ex parte pcenitentis, aut quando confessarius invitat poenitentem ad confessionem hie et nunc faciendam, et hac occasione data, divertit pcenitentem a pro- posito et ad turpia provocat; aut si in confessione, sive immediate ante sive post, initium sollicitationis fit, quce postea completur v.g. si dantur litterce sollicitantes vel si fit interrogatio de habitatione et postea sequitur sollicitatio domi, vel si ob fragilitatem mulieris ex ejus confessione cognitam postea earn domi sollicitaverit, dummodo ex indiciis sufficienter constat, eum ex ilia scientia non aliis ex causis ad id motum fuisse.182 Ejusmodi indicia aderunt si v.g. confessarius auditis peccatis mulierem interrogaverit, ubi habitet, an sola domi manere soleat vel alia hisce similia interrogaverit, vel, dum ad peccandum accessit, verbis aut factis aliqua commemo- ravit ex Us, qucc ex confessione accepit.183 (5) Prcetextu confessionis (fictce), si confessarius ex pravo fine invitat mulierem ad confessionem et deinde sollicitat, vel feminos suadet, ut fingens se cegrotam eum, confessarium suum, tanquam ad confessionem faciendam, revera ad peccandum accersat. Secus probabilius dicendum, si proctextus confessionis non est ordinatus ad sollicitationem sed ad peccati jam conventi executionem, puta ad avertendum Superiorem vel familiares domus a scandalo et sus- picione mali.lM 182 Illud : " occasione " duplici hie significatione sumitur : altera opportu- /litatis, altera niotivi. 183 Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 678; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 1098. Ballerini, Not. ad Gury, II. n. 590; Nouv. Rev. Theolog. Tom. 12, p. 31 ss. Lehmkuhl, 1. c. n. 976. 184 S. Alph. 1. c. nn. 678 and 679. Hinc sollicitans dicendus est Confes sarius, si mulier, nulla conventione praemissa prsetextu confessionis vocet ipsum in domum suam, qui cum accesserit, a muliere sollicitatus turpiter peccat eum ilia; nam juxta decreta S. C. Inq. sollicitatio etiam a poenitente emanare potest. Etiam sollicitans dicendus est Confessarius, qui extra con fessionem sollicitat feminam huicque renuenti ob timorem diffamationis, suadet, ut fingens se segrotam eum ad peccandum accerseret. S. Alph. n 679; vide Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 1102. 368 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT (b) Relatio requisita ad locum, ubi confessiones excipiuntur, aderit, si actus prohibiti exerceantur : — (1) In confessionali proprie dicto; (2) in loco quocunque, ubi confessiones excipi solent, licet confessionale ibi non inveniatur; (3) in loco quocunque, quern confessarius ad confessiones audien- das pro suo arbitrio elegit. Ut autem crimen sollicitationis ex mente legislators adsit ac propterea poena sollicitantibus confessariis inflicta contrahatur, ob circumstantias sub (b) enarratas enascatur simulatio confessionis accedat necesse est, i.e. confessarius et po3nitens ita se gerant opor- tet, ut confessionem ille audire (v.g. aures applicando), hie pera- gere videatur. HCEC tamen simulatio non requiritur, si sollicitat in confessionali personam, quo3 pariter in eo invenitur; sufficit enim, ut sacerdos in confessionali de rebus turpibus agat, quin simulet confessionem audire.185 The sollicitatio described in the foregoing is a very grave mortal sin of impurity, of sacrilege, and of scandal. For it is a dreadful abuse of the Sacrament of Penance, when, as Gregory XV ex presses himself, the confessor thus offers the penitent poison instead of a remedy, instead of bread a scorpion, from a spiritual father becoming a wretched betrayer of souls. IV. All penitents are bound under pain of mortal sin to de nounce to the Ordinarius loci, or to the Holy See through the Penitentiary or Inquisition, the confessors who have been guilty of solicitation.186 The object of this denunciation is the following : — 1. If the person who denounces is known as honorable and truthful, if no evil intention, such as revenge, enmity, or cal umny is to be imputed to him, whilst on the other hand, the denounced priest is already known to be not very conscientious, the denunciation effects that the suspected confessor will be 185 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 680. Ballerini, Opus. Theol. Mor. 1. c. n. 1107. 186 Compare the above-cited Constitutions of the Popes, and the Instruc tion of the S. C. Inquis.'20 Feb., 1867. SOLLICITATIO PEOPEII POEN1TENTI8 AD TUBPIA 369 watched by the Ordinarius™1 And if stronger grounds of suspicion against the denounced priest accumulate from other quarters (for example, suspicious intercourse), this supplies the Ordinarius with a motive for administering to him, in the first place, a fatherly warning, in doing which, the Ordinarius does not yet impute to him the crimen sollicitationis , but rather ex horts him to be conscientious; in this, however, the Ordinarius must so proceed as not to excite the suspicion of the denounced against the denouncer. " Ut plurimum enim nonnisi a tertia denuntiatione ad judicium procedi debet." 188 The precise object of the law is to safeguard the Church and to inspire confessors with a just dread of the enormity of the crime which abuses the sacred tribunal of penance ; or, as Amort expresses it : finis non est emendatio persona? particularis sed securitas publica Sacra- menti et animarum ex castigatione certa tarn abominandi sceleris, et ex metu indeclinabili omnium confessariorum incurrendi gra- vissima supplicia etiam actu unico aut, semel tantum iterato; imo etiam indemnitas Ecdesice ne scil. ejusmodi pestes ad officia publica subrepant, quo nihil est nocentius communi Ecdesice bono.189 Every solicited person is, therefore, strictly bound to denounce, and is not released from this duty because another has denounced; this duty never ceases to bind, though it is sometimes suspended for a time ; in case of repetition a confessor must be again denounced, even if he has been already punished on account of the first transgression, or has not been fully con victed of solicitation ; 1!)0 again, the penitent is bound to denounce, even when, in consequence of correctio fraterna, he believes that he may confidently hope for amendment, indeed, as St. Alphon- sus teaches, even when the fault has been atoned for; 191 denun- 187 Cf . Instr. S. C. Inq. 1867, sub 11. 188 Cf. Instruct, cit. 189 Amort, Theol. Mor. De Poen. Q. 19. 190 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 687. Cf. Resp. S. C. Inq. a. 1661, ad dub. 13. 191 Lib. VI. n. 701, II. A. Tr. 16, n. 175. Bucceroni, Commentar. in Con- stit. Bened. XIV, "Sacrament. Pcenit." art. II. Sect. 2, p. 66. 370 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT elation must be made if the fact is certain though it cannot be judicially proved, or when the crime is secret, or was committed a long time before. It must not be supposed that belated in formation of this kind can be of no use; it may perhaps serve to complete previous information respecting the same confessor, or, in conjunction with other grounds of suspicion to close to a hypocrite the road to ecclesiastical dignities, or at least, to inspire the confessor with lasting fear of filling up the measure of iniquity by repeated solicitation, seeing that even solicitations committed a long time before may be brought into court. If, however, the person who solicited is dead, the denunciation need not take place, because then the full object of the law can no longer be realized.192 2. The duty of denouncing is not incumbent upon the person who solicits, nor is he bound to admonish the penitent solicited by him to make the denunciation. All solicited penitents, however, without exception, male and female, seculars and regu lars, high and low, to whatever class they may belong, are bound to denounce. Denunciation is also incumbent (but now no longer sub excommunicatione) 193 upon all witnesses of this crime, eye witnesses or ear-witnesses, and whoever has received informa tion of the solicitation outside confession, directly or indirectly, from words of the person soliciting himself, or the solicited per son, if the latter be trustworthy.194 The penitent must denounce in any case whether he has consented to, or rejected, the solicita- 192 Cf . Bucceroni, 1. c. p. 66. 193 Not, be it remarked, virtute Constitutionum Pontificiarum contra sollici- tantes, but virtute prcecepti denuntiandi intra mensem hcereticos et suspectos de hceresi. Cf. Bucceroni, 1. c. art. II. § 1, p. 56. 194 S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 698. They are not bound to denounce : (a) when the solicited person has already given the information ; (7>) when they would suffer great detriment by so doing, except in the case of a priest of great influence who had already solicited many persons; (c) when the person soliciting is related to them within the fourth degree. Cf. Mazzotta, 1. c. Tr. 2, Disp. 1, Q. 1, cp. 2, Sect. 4 ; Ballerini, Op. ^Theol. Mor. 1. c. 11. 1136 ss. SOLLICITATlO PttOPRII POEXITENTIS AD TURPIA 371 tion, but he need not make known his consent; he must also denounce when the solicitation has been mutual between con fessor and penitent, or when the penitent has solicited, and the confessor has consented.195 A young girl, who, at the time of being solicited, was ignorant of any evil design, must, according to a decree of the Sacred Inqui sition (May 11, 1707) denounce the confessor as soon as she has attained to an understanding of the solicitation which took place. The solicited person, or whoever has certain knowledge of the solicitation, is not released from the obligation to denounce on account of the general difficulties attaching to the denuncia tion itself, as, for example, shame at having been solicited; fear that the judge might become suspicious of her; the danger of harm or detriment to the denouncing person ; any such damage must be considered as trifling compared with the possibility of scandal to the Church and to souls; the use of Epikeia (i.e., a benign interpretation of the law) is not justifiable in this case. 3. Every priest who has been guilty of the crime of solicita tion, including him who possesses no jurisdiction, is liable to denunciation, be he secular or regular, or in any way exempted, whatever dignity he may hold ; whether he has himself solicited, or consented to the solicitation of the penitent, and even when he has already amended.196 V. The confessor's dealing with solicited persons is regulated in accordance with the following ordinances of the Papal Consti tutions and Instructions of the Sacred Congregation. 1. All confessors are bound sub gram to instruct those of their penitents whom they know to have been solicited in the specified manner, that it is their duty to denounce the persons soliciting. This duty of instructing remains imperative even when the solicited penitents are in bona fide. 195 Cf. S. Alph. nn. 700, 697, 695. Bucceroni, 1. c. p. 65. 196 Compare the Constitutions of the Popes and the above-cited Instr. S. C. Tnq. S. Alph. 1111. 6S(>, 688. 872 THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT The confessors who do not instruct their solicited penitents must be punished.197 They must instruct their penitents concerning : (a) the strict duty of denouncing; (b) the time within which the denuncia tion must be made; (c) the penalty attached to the neglect of this duty; and (d) the manner of making the denunciation. 2. Let the confessor proceed in the following manner : - (a) If he is in doubt as to whether the act or the word of the person in question really constituted a true solicitation, he must not oblige the penitent to denounce, except when strong grounds for suspecting solicitation are superadded, or when the words, de se, are soliciting, and doubt exists only as to whether the con fessor uttered them with a bad intention.198 (b) Before the confessor binds the solicited person to denounce (and only on condition that she denounce may absolution be administered) he must seriously consider whether this person be deserving of credit, or if there is weighty, just, and very prob able suspicion, supported by other indications, that she is influ enced by revenge and wishes to calumniate the priest. In this latter case the confessor must remind her that she commits a very great sin, and one reserved to the Pope, in falsely denounc ing a priest for solicitation. (c) The confessor must not seek to know the name of the person soliciting, though he must question the penitent as to the necessary circumstances. (d) And when the confessor knows positively that the peni tent has been solicited, he must seriously impress upon her (even when she is in good faith) the duty of denouncing the per son who solicited, and the confessor is bound to do so, even when he foresees that the penitent will not denounce.1*9 After 197 Cf. Instruct, nn. 3 and 4. 198 Cf. Instruct. S. C. Inq. a. 1661, ad dub. 12, 16. 199 Constitutiones cit. et Instruct. Cf . S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 615-694, ratio: ob vitandum